belief system essay introduction

Belief Systems: Definition, Characteristics & Examples

belief systems definition, examples, and types, explained below

A belief system is a structured set of principles or tenets held to be true by an individual or larger group. It can contain aspects such as morality, life purpose, or empirical reality (Uso-Domenech & Nescolarde-Selva, 2016).

Belief systems are fundamental to human existence. By studying them, we can gain critical insight into the underlying causes behind both individual and societal actions, values, and perceptions.

Belief systems tend to shape our individual code of conduct. For example, the ethical principle of “do no harm” paves the base for medical professionals’ conduct (Wattenberg, 2019).

Furthermore, these systems extend beyond personal ethics, providing a backbone to cultural groups and shaping significant aspects, including politics, law, and cultural norms . For example, broad constructs such as democracy or justice are underpinned by a cultural group’s shared beliefs and norms.

The Origins of Belief Systems

The genesis of belief systems is multifaceted. It traces back to our earliest human ancestors trying to make sense of the world around them.

Examples include:

Explaining Natural Phenomena: Oftentimes, belief systems spring from the desire to explain natural phenomena (Converse, 2006). Early societies utilized faith to provide reasons for natural occurrences, such as storms or earthquakes. For instance, the ancient Greeks believed in the God Poseidon, whom they saw as the cause of earthquakes and other seismic events.
Social Structure and Control: Belief systems also stem from the human need for social structure and control (Kinder, 2006). Early societies established rules and expectations concerning each member’s behavior. This led to principles that were passed down from generation to generation, creating a communal belief system. Japanese culture, for instance, has a deeply ingrained belief known as “giri” or familial obligation , which dictates social interactions and responsibilities (Kinder, 2006).
Experience and Context: They can also be shaped by experience, cultural context , and education. What we learn from our parents, teachers, and life experiences significantly influence our perceptions, beliefs, and values (Converse, 2006). A person who grew up during the civil rights movement in the United States, for example, may have formed strong beliefs about racial equality due to their experiences during that time. Each of these factors, individually or combined, contributes to the creation and development of belief systems.

Types and Examples of Belief Systems

1. religions.

Religions are complex systems of beliefs that shape an individual’s or group’s spiritual worldview. They typically embody questions about the nature of the divine, the afterlife, and moral standards (Schipper, 2015). For example, Christianity holds the belief in a monotheistic God and emphasizes principles of love and forgiveness.

Examples: Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Janism

2. Philosophical Systems

Philosophical systems consist of frameworks that strive to answer life’s fundamental questions. They deal with concepts such as existence, reality, knowledge, values, and morality. A case in point is existentialism, which focuses on individual freedom, choice, and subjective meaning (Popkin, 2018).

Examples: Existentialism , Utilitarianism , Stoicism, Nihilism, Rationalism, Empiricism

3. Political Ideologies

These are belief systems that govern political views and shape how societies should be organized. They dictate the distribution of power, rights, and resources among the population (Wattenberg, 2019). For instance, liberalism places a high importance on individual rights and freedom , advocating for a democratic system and equality of opportunity.

Examples: Liberalism , Conservatism , Socialism , Fascism , Anarchism

4. Economic Systems

These belief systems define how societies produce, distribute and consume goods and services. They guide the economic policies a country adopts and how it manages its resources (Popkin, 2018). Capitalism, for example, is centered on private ownership of resources and a free market for distribution and consumption.

Examples: Capitalism , Socialism, Communism , Mixed economies , Market economies

5. Scientific Paradigms

These influence our understanding and interpretation of natural and physical phenomena. Constituting specific theories, methods, and standards of practice, they shape scientific investigation and discovery (Rutjens & Brandt, 2018). The theory of evolution, for example, guides biologists and paleontologists in their interpretation of fossil records and genetic studies.

Examples: Theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, Newtonian Physics, Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory of Disease

Influence of Belief Systems on Human Behavior

Belief systems fundamentally influence human behavior . They essentially define our perception of what is right or wrong, shaping our actions in alignment with these views.

Belief systems shape moral behavior (Brandt, 2022). For example, most religions have guidelines on ethical conduct (known as “commandments” in Christianity or “precepts” in Buddhism), which influence followers’ behavior. Believers are urged to adhere to these principles, significantly impacting decision-making and conduct.

Belief systems also affect how we go about our days (Rutjens & Brandt, 2018). Our morning routines, our choice of transportation, even the food we eat, are all influenced by deeply rooted belief structures. For example, a person with a belief system focused on environmental sustainability might choose to cycle to work and follow a vegetarian diet.

Likewise, belief systems influence our social behavior (Wattenberg, 2019). They guide our approach towards fairness, justice, and interpersonal relationships. A person who values fairness may eschew discriminatory actions, promoting diversity and inclusivity in their spheres of influence.

Positive and Negative Effects of Belief Systems

While belief systems help cultures develop norms of behavior, shared identities, and frameworks for action, they can also be restrictive and cause in-groups and out-groups.

Below is a summary of key aspects of belief systems, and their positive and negative impacts:

Summary of Key Points

Belief systems underpin individual, societal actions and values.
They influence personal ethics, politics, and cultural norms.
They’re developed to explain various things, such as natural phenomena, the origins of the universe, and personal experience .
Main types of belief systems include religions, philosophical systems, political ideologies, economic systems, and scientific paradigms.
Belief systems can positively shape behavior, offer identity, and help form cohesive societies.
However, they can also divide societies and cause people to engage in immoral actions.

Brandt, M. J. (2022). Measuring the belief system of a person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Converse, P. E. (2006). The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical review, 18 (1-3), 1-74.

Kinder, D. R. (2006). Belief systems today. Critical Review, 18 (1-3), 197-216.

Popkin, S. L. (2018). The factual basis of “belief systems”: A reassessment. In The Nature of Belief Systems Reconsidered (pp. 279-300). Routledge.

Rutjens, B. T., & Brandt, M. J. (2018). Belief systems and the perception of reality: An introduction. Belief systems and the perception of reality , 1-10.

Scanes, C. G., & Chengzhong, P. (2018). Animals and Religion, Belief Systems, Symbolism and Myth. In Animals and Human Society (pp. 257-280). Academic Press.

Schipper, E. L. F. (2015). Religion and Belief Systems. Cultures and disasters: Understanding cultural framings in disaster risk reduction , 162-71.

Uso-Domenech, J. L., & Nescolarde-Selva, J. (2016). What are belief systems?. Foundations of Science, 21 , 147-152.

Wattenberg, M. P. (2019). The changing nature of mass belief systems: The rise of concept and policy ideologues. Critical Review, 31 (2), 198-229.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Social-Emotional Learning (Definition, Examples, Pros & Cons)
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is Educational Psychology?
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is IQ? (Intelligence Quotient)
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University

Essay on World Religions And Belief Systems

Students are often asked to write an essay on World Religions And Belief Systems in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on World Religions And Belief Systems

World religions.

There are many different religions in the world, each with its own beliefs and practices. Some of the major religions include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism.

Belief Systems

A belief system is a set of beliefs that a person or group of people holds to be true. Belief systems can be religious or secular. Religious belief systems are based on the teachings of a particular religion, while secular belief systems are not based on any particular religion.

Diversity of Religions

The diversity of religions in the world is a reflection of the different ways that people have tried to understand the meaning of life and the universe. There is no one right way to believe, and people should be free to practice the religion that they feel is right for them.

It is important to be tolerant of people who have different religious beliefs. Tolerance means respecting the beliefs of others, even if you do not agree with them. Tolerance is essential for creating a peaceful and harmonious world.

250 Words Essay on World Religions And Belief Systems

What are world religions.

World religions are belief systems that have a large number of followers all over the world. They offer rituals, ceremonies, and practices to help people connect with the divine or ultimate reality. World religions include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism.

Christianity:

Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and revolves around the belief in a triune God consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah who came to Earth to save humanity from sin. Christianity emphasizes love, forgiveness, and compassion.

Islam is founded on the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and centers around belief in one God, Allah, and his messenger, Muhammad. It highlights the importance of submission to God’s will, known as Islam, and adherence to the Five Pillars of Islam. Muslims strive to live a life of devotion, prayer, fasting, charity, and pilgrimage to Mecca.

Hinduism is a complex and diverse belief system with no single founder. It originated in India and encompasses a variety of traditions, philosophies, and practices. Hinduism places great emphasis on dharma, or righteous living, and the concept of reincarnation, where the soul passes through a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.

Buddhism, founded by Siddhartha Gautama, or the Buddha, originated in India and focuses on the pursuit of enlightenment or nirvana. It emphasizes the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path as ways to overcome suffering and achieve liberation from the cycle of rebirth.

Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion, dating back to the Hebrew patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It revolves around the belief in one God, Yahweh or Jehovah, and the sacredness of the Torah, the Hebrew Bible. Judaism emphasizes ethical behavior, ritual observance, and the covenant between God and the Jewish people.

500 Words Essay on World Religions And Belief Systems

Belief Systems of World Religions

Belief systems of world religions are the sets of beliefs and practices that are followed by the members of that religion. These beliefs and practices can be about things like God or gods, the afterlife, and the meaning of life. They can also include things like rituals, ceremonies, and festivals.

Similarities among World Religions

Even though world religions have different beliefs and practices, they also share some similarities. For example, many religions believe in a higher power, or God. They also often have a sense of community and belonging. Additionally, many religions have a code of ethics that their members are expected to follow.

Differences among World Religions

Of course, there are also many differences among world religions. These differences can be in their beliefs about God, the afterlife, and the meaning of life. They can also be in their rituals, ceremonies, and festivals. These differences can sometimes lead to conflict between different religious groups.

Importance of Understanding World Religions

It is important to understand world religions because they play a major role in the lives of many people around the world. They can help to shape people’s values, beliefs, and behaviors. They can also give people a sense of community and belonging. By understanding world religions, we can better understand the people who practice them and build bridges between different cultures.

World religions are belief systems that have a large number of followers all over the world. They often have a long history, and they have shaped the cultures of the regions where they are practiced. Belief systems of world religions are the sets of beliefs and practices that are followed by the members of that religion. They can be about things like God or gods, the afterlife, and the meaning of life. Even though world religions have different beliefs and practices, they also share some similarities.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Refugee
Essay on Power Of Truth
Essay on Young India Boon Or Bane

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

World History Project - Origins to the Present

Course: world history project - origins to the present > unit 3, read: overview of belief systems.

READ: Confucianism
READ: Daoism
READ: Buddhism
READ: Legalism
READ: Why do Belief Systems Spread? How China Made Buddhism its Own
BEFORE YOU WATCH: Christianity from Judaism to Constantine
WATCH: Christianity from Judaism to Constantine
BEFORE YOU WATCH: Islam, the Quran, and the Five Pillars
WATCH: Islam, the Quran, and the Five Pillars
READ: Judaism
READ: Christianity
READ: Hinduism
READ: Islam
READ: Syncretism
BEFORE YOU WATCH: Cultural Syncretism in Central Asia
WATCH: Cultural Syncretism in Central Asia
Development of Portable Belief Systems

First read: preview and skimming for gist

Second read: key ideas and understanding content.

What is a belief system? How is it not the same as a religion?
What are animistic belief systems?
How did the development of the state, hierarchies, and specialization contribute to the development of religions?
What does it mean to state that a religion is portable?
What does it mean to state that a religion is universal?
How did systems of belief change people’s behaviors?

Third read: evaluating and corroborating

How would you explain a belief system as a network? How would you explain a belief system as a community? What is the value of looking at belief systems through both frames?

Overview of Belief Systems

Introduction – the big questions, the human spirit – our earliest belief systems, faith communities – organized systems of belief in early societies, god on the go – portable and universal systems of beliefs and ideas.

Why are we here?
What's our place in the universe?
What's the meaning of life?

Want to join the conversation?

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

The Concept of Religion

It is common today to take the concept religion as a taxon for sets of social practices, a category-concept whose paradigmatic examples are the so-called “world” religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. [ 1 ] Perhaps equally paradigmatic, though somewhat trickier to label, are forms of life that have not been given a name, either by practitioners or by observers, but are common to a geographical area or a group of people—for example, the religion of China or that of ancient Rome, the religion of the Yoruba or that of the Cherokee. In short, the concept is today used for a genus of social formations that includes several members, a type of which there are many tokens.

The concept religion did not originally refer to a social genus, however. Its earliest references were not to social kinds and, over time, the extension of the concept has evolved in different directions, to the point that it threatens incoherence. As Paul Griffiths notes, listening to the discussions about the concept religion

rapidly suggests the conclusion that hardly anyone has any idea what they are talking about—or, perhaps more accurately, that there are so many different ideas in play about what religion is that conversations in which the term figures significantly make the difficulties in communication at the Tower of Babel seem minor and easily dealt with. These difficulties are apparent, too, in the academic study of religion, and they go far toward an explanation of why the discipline has no coherent or widely shared understanding of its central topic. (2000: 30)

This entry therefore provides a brief history of the how the semantic range of religion has grown and shifted over the years, and then considers two philosophical issues that arise for the contested concept, issues that are likely to arise for other abstract concepts used to sort cultural types (such as “literature”, “democracy”, or “culture” itself). First, the disparate variety of practices now said to fall within this category raises a question of whether one can understand this social taxon in terms of necessary and sufficient properties or whether instead one should instead treat it as a family resemblance concept. Here, the question is whether the concept religion can be said to have an essence. Second, the recognition that the concept has shifted its meanings, that it arose at a particular time and place but was unknown elsewhere, and that it has so often been used to denigrate certain cultures, raises the question whether the concept corresponds to any kind of entity in the world at all or whether, instead, it is simply a rhetorical device that should be retired. This entry therefore considers the rise of critical and skeptical analyses of the concept, including those that argue that the term refers to nothing.

1. A History of the Concept

2.1 monothetic approaches, 2.2 polythetic approaches, 3. reflexivity, reference, and skepticism, other internet resources, related entries.

The concept religion did not originally refer to a social genus or cultural type. It was adapted from the Latin term religio , a term roughly equivalent to “scrupulousness”. Religio also approximates “conscientiousness”, “devotedness”, or “felt obligation”, since religio was an effect of taboos, promises, curses, or transgressions, even when these were unrelated to the gods. In western antiquity, and likely in many or most cultures, there was a recognition that some people worshipped different gods with commitments that were incompatible with each other and that these people constituted social groups that could be rivals. In that context, one sometimes sees the use of nobis religio to mean “our way of worship”. Nevertheless, religio had a range of senses and so Augustine could consider but reject it as the right abstract term for “how one worships God” because the Latin term (like the Latin terms for “cult” and “service”) was used for the observance of duties in both one’s divine and one’s human relationships (Augustine City of God [1968: Book X, Chapter 1, 251–253]). In the Middle Ages, as Christians developed monastic orders in which one took vows to live under a specific rule, they called such an order religio (and religiones for the plural), though the term continued to be used, as it had been in antiquity, in adjective form to describe those who were devout and in noun form to refer to worship (Biller 1985: 358; Nongbri 2013: ch. 2).

The most significant shift in the history of the concept is when people began to use religion as a genus of which Christian and non-Christian groups were species. One sees a clear example of this use in the writings of Edward Herbert (1583–1648). As the post-Reformation Christian community fractured into literal warring camps, Herbert sought to remind the different protesting groups of what they nevertheless had in common. Herbert identified five “articles” or “elements” that he proposed were found in every religion, which he called the Common Notions, namely: the beliefs that

there is a supreme deity, [ 2 ]
this deity should be worshipped,
the most important part of religious practice is the cultivation of virtue,
one should seek repentance for wrong-doing, and
one is rewarded or punished in this life and the next.

Ignoring rituals and group membership, this proposal takes an idealized Protestant monotheism as the model of religion as such. Herbert was aware of peoples who worshipped something other than a single supreme deity. He noted that ancient Egyptians, for instance, worshipped multiple gods and people in other cultures worshipped celestial bodies or forces in nature. Herbert might have argued that, lacking a belief in a supreme deity, these practices were not religions at all but belonged instead in some other category such as superstition, heresy, or magic. But Herbert did include them, arguing that they were religions because the multiple gods were actually servants to or even aspects of the one supreme deity, and those who worshiped natural forces worshipped the supreme deity “in His works”.

The concept religion understood as a social genus was increasingly put to use by to European Christians as they sought to categorize the variety of cultures they encountered as their empires moved into the Americas, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and Oceania. In this context, fed by reports from missionaries and colonial administrators, the extension of the generic concept was expanded. The most influential example is that of anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917) who had a scholarly interest in pre-Columbian Mexico. Like Herbert, Tylor sought to identify the common denominator of all religions, what Tylor called a “minimal definition” of religion, and he proposed that the key characteristic was “belief in spiritual beings” (1871 [1970: 8]). This generic definition included the forms of life predicated on belief in a supreme deity that Herbert had classified as religion. But it could also now include—without Herbert’s procrustean assumption that these practices were really directed to one supreme being—the practices used by Hindus, ancient Athenians, and the Navajo to connect to the gods they revere, the practices used by Mahayana Buddhists to connect to Bodhisattvas, and the practices used by Malagasy people to connect to the cult of the dead. The use of a unifying concept for such diverse practices is deliberate on Tylor’s part as he sought to undermine assumptions that human cultures poorly understood in Christian Europe—especially those despised ones, “painted black on the missionary maps” (1871 [1970: 4])—were not on the very same spectrum as the religion of his readers. This opposition to dividing European and non-European cultures into separate categories underlies Tylor’s insistence that all human beings are equivalent in terms of their intelligence. He argued that so-called “primitive” peoples generate their religious ideas when they wrestle with the same questions that all people do, such as the biological question of what explains life, and they do so with the same cognitive capacities. They may lack microscopes or telescopes, but Tylor claims that they seek to answer these questions in ways that are “rational”, “consistent”, and “logical”. Tylor repeatedly calls the Americans, Africans, and Asians he studies “thinking men” and “philosophers”. Tylor was conscious that the definition he proposed was part of a shift: though it was still common to describe some people as so primitive that they had no religion, Tylor complains that those who speak this way are guilty of “the use of wide words in narrow senses” because they are only willing to describe as religion practices that resemble their own expectations (1871 [1970: 3–4]).

In the twentieth century, one sees a third and last growth spurt in the extension of the concept. Here the concept religion is enlarged to include not only practices that connect people to one or more spirits, but also practices that connect people to “powers” or “forces” that lack minds, wills, and personalities. One sees this shift in the work of William James, for example, when he writes,

Were one asked to characterize the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto. (1902 [1985: 51]; cf. Proudfoot 2000)

By an “unseen order”, James presumably means a structure that is non-empirical, though he is not clear about why the term would not also include political, economic, or other invisible but human-created orders. The same problem plagues James’s description of “a MORE” operating in the universe that is similar to but outside oneself (1902 [1985: 400], capitalization in the original). The anthropologist Clifford Geertz addresses this issue, also defining religion in terms of an “order” but specifying that he means practices tied to conceptions of “a general order of existence”, that is, as he also says, something whose existence is “fundamental”, “all-pervading”, or “unconditioned” (1973: 98, emphasis added). The practices that are distinctly religious for Geertz are those tied to a culture’s metaphysics or worldview, their conception of “the overall shape of reality” (1973: 104). Like James, then, Geertz would include as religions not only the forms of life based on the theistic and polytheistic (or, more broadly, animist or spiritualist) beliefs that Herbert and Tylor recognized, but also those based on belief in the involuntary, spontaneous, or “natural” operations of the law of karma, the Dao in Daoism, the Principle in Neo-Confucianism, and the Logos in Stoicism. This expansion also includes Theravada Buddhism because dependent co-origination ( pratītyasamutpāda ) is a conception of the general order of existence and it includes Zen Buddhism because Buddha-nature is said to pervade everything. This third expansion is why non-theistic forms of Buddhism, excluded by the Herbert’s and Tylor’s definitions but today widely considered religions, can serve as “a litmus test” for definitions of the concept (Turner 2011: xxiii; cf. Southwold 1978). In sum, then, one can think of the growth of the social genus version of the concept religion as analogous to three concentric circles—from a theistic to a polytheistic and then to a cosmic (or “cosmographic” [Dubuisson 1998]) criterion. Given the near-automatic way that Buddhism is taken as a religion today, the cosmic version now seems to be the dominant one.

Some scholars resist this third expansion of the concept and retain a Tylorean definition, and it is true that there is a marked difference between practices that do and practices that do not involve interacting with person-like beings. In the former, anthropomorphic cases, practitioners can ask for help, make offerings, and pray with an understanding that they are heard. In the latter, non-anthropomorphic cases, practitioners instead typically engage in actions that put themselves “in accord with” the order of things. The anthropologist Robert Marett marks this difference between the last two extensions of the concept religion by distinguishing between “animism” and “animatism” (1909), the philosopher John Hick by distinguishing between religious “personae” and religious “impersonae” (1989: ch. 14–15). This difference raises a philosophical question: on what grounds can one place the practices based on these two kinds of realities in the same category? The many loa spirits, the creator Allah, and the all-pervading Dao are not available to the methods of the natural sciences, and so they are often called “supernatural”. If that term works, then religions in all three concentric circles can be understood as sets of practices predicated on belief in the supernatural. However, “supernatural” suggests a two-level view of reality that separates the empirically available natural world from some other realm metaphorically “above” or “behind” it. Many cultures lack or reject a distinction between natural and supernatural (Saler 1977, 2021). They believe that disembodied persons or powers are not in some otherworldly realm but rather on the top of a certain mountain, in the depths of the forest, or “everywhere”. To avoid the assumption of a two-level view of reality, then, some scholars have replaced supernatural with other terms, such as “superhuman”. Hick uses the term “transcendent”:

the putative reality which transcends everything other than itself but is not transcended by anything other than itself. (1993: 164)

In order to include loa , Allah, and the Dao but to exclude nations and economies, Kevin Schilbrack (2013) proposes the neologism “superempirical” to refer to non-empirical things that are also not the product of any empirical thing. Wouter Hanegraaff (1995), following J. G. Platvoet (1982: 30) uses “meta-empirical”. Whether a common element can be identified that will coherently ground a substantive definition of “religion” is not a settled question.

Despite this murkiness, all three of these versions are “substantive” definitions of religion because they determine membership in the category in terms of the presence of a belief in a distinctive kind of reality. In the twentieth century, however, one sees the emergence of an importantly different approach: a definition that drops the substantive element and instead defines the concept religion in terms of a distinctive role that a form of life can play in one’s life—that is, a “functional” definition. One sees a functional approach in Emile Durkheim (1912), who defines religion as whatever system of practices unite a number of people into a single moral community (whether or not those practices involve belief in any unusual realities). Durkheim’s definition turns on the social function of creating solidarity. One also sees a functional approach in Paul Tillich (1957), who defines religion as whatever dominant concern serves to organize a person’s values (whether or not that concern involve belief in any unusual realities). Tillich’s definition turns on the axiological function of providing orientation for a person’s life.

Substantive and functional approaches can produce non-overlapping extensions for the concept. Famously, a functional approach can hold that even atheistic forms of capitalism, nationalism, and Marxism function as religions. The literature on these secular institutions as functionally religions is massive. As Trevor Ling says,

the bulk of literature supporting the view that Marxism is a religion is so great that it cannot easily be set aside. (1980: 152)

On capitalism as a religion, see, e.g., McCarraher (2019); on nationalism, see, e.g., Omer and Springs (2013: ch. 2). One functionalist might count white supremacy as a religion (Weed 2019; Finley et al. 2020) and another might count anti-racism as a religion (McWhorter 2021). Here, celebrities can reach a religious status and fandom can be one’s religious identity (e.g., Lofton 2011; Lovric 2020). Without a supernatural, transcendent, or superempirical element, these phenomena would not count as religious for Herbert, Tylor, James, or Geertz. Conversely, interactions with supernatural beings may be categorized on a functional approach as something other than religion. For example, the Thai villager who wears an apotropaic amulet and avoids the forest because of a belief that malevolent spirits live there, or the ancient Roman citizen who takes a bird to be sacrificed in a temple before she goes on a journey are for Durkheim examples of magic rather than religion, and for Tillich quotidian rather than ultimate concerns.

It is sometimes assumed that to define religion as a social genus is to treat it as something universal, as something that appears in every human culture. It is true that some scholars have treated religion as pan-human. For example, when a scholar defines religion functionally as the beliefs and practices that generate social cohesion or as the ones that provide orientation in life, then religion names an inevitable feature of the human condition. The universality of religion that one then finds is not a discovery but a product of one’s definition. However, a social genus can be both present in more than one culture without being present in all of them, and so one can define religion , either substantively or functionally, in ways that are not universal. As common as beliefs in disembodied spirits or cosmological orders have been in human history, for instance, there were people in the past and there are people in the present who have no views of an afterlife, supernatural beings, or explicit metaphysics.

2. Two Kinds of Analysis of the Concept

The history of the concept religion above shows how its senses have shifted over time. A concept used for scrupulous devotion was retooled to refer to a particular type of social practice. But the question—what type?—is now convoluted. The cosmic version of the concept is broader than the polytheistic version, which is in turn broader than the theistic version, and the functional definitions shift the sense of the term into a completely different register. What is counted as religion by one definition is often not counted by others. How might this disarray be understood? Does the concept have a structure? This section distinguishes between two kinds of answer to these questions. Most of the attempts to analyze the term have been “monothetic” in that they operate with the classical view that every instance that is accurately described by a concept will share a defining property that puts them in that category. The last several decades, however, have seen the emergence of “polythetic” approaches that abandon the classical view and treat religion , instead, as having a prototype structure. For incisive explanations of the classical theory and the prototype theory of concepts, see Laurence and Margolis (1999).

Monothetic approaches use a single property (or a single set of properties) as the criterion that determines whether a concept applies. The key to a monothetic approach is that it proposes necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in the given class. That is, a monothetic approach claims that there is some characteristic, or set of them, found in every religion and that if a form of life has it, then that form of life is a religion. Most definitions of the concept religion have been of this type. For example, as we saw above, Edward Tylor proposes belief in spiritual beings as his minimal definition of religion, and this is a substantive criterion that distinguishes religion from non-religion in terms of belief in this particular kind of entity. Similarly, Paul Tillich proposes ultimate concern as a functional criterion that distinguishes religion from non-religion in terms of what serves this particular role in one’s life. These are single criterion monothetic definitions.

There are also monothetic definitions that define religion in terms of a single set of criteria. Herbert’s five Common Notions are an early example. More recently, Clifford Geertz (1973: ch. 4) proposes a definition that he breaks down into five elements:

a system of symbols
about the nature of things,
that inculcate dispositions for behavior
through ritual and cultural performance, [ 3 ]
so that the conceptions held by the group are taken as real.

One can find each of these five elements separately, of course: not all symbols are religious symbols; historians (but not novelists) typically consider their conceptions factual; and so on. For Geertz, however, any religious form of life will have all five. Aware of functional approaches like that of Tillich, Geertz is explicit that symbols and rituals that lack reference to a metaphysical framework—that is, those without the substantive element he requires as his (2)—would be secular and not religious, no matter how intense or important one’s feelings about them are (1973: 98). Reference to a metaphysical entity or power is what marks the other four elements as religious. Without it, Geertz writes, “the empirical differentia of religious activity or religious experience would not exist” (1973: 98). As a third example, Bruce Lincoln (2006: ch. 1) enumerates four elements that a religion would have, namely:

“a discourse whose concerns transcend the human, temporal, and contingent, and that claims for itself a similarly transcendent status”,
practices connected to that discourse,
people who construct their identity with reference to that discourse and those practices, and
institutional structures to manage those people.

This definition is monothetic since, for Lincoln, religions always have these four features “at a minimum” (2006: 5). [ 4 ] To be sure, people constantly engage in practices that generate social groups that then have to be maintained and managed by rules or authorities. However, when the practices, communities, and institutions lack the distinctive kind of discourse that claims transcendent status for itself, they would not count for Lincoln as religions.

It is worth noting that when a monothetic definition includes multiple criteria, one does not have to choose between the substantive and functional strategies for defining religion , but can instead include both. If a monothetic definition include both strategies, then, to count as a religion, a form of life would have to refer to a distinctive substantive reality and also play a certain role in the participants’ lives. This double-sided approach avoids the result of purely substantive definitions that might count as religion a feckless set of beliefs (for instance, “something must have created the world”) unconnected from the believers’ desires and behavior, while also avoiding the result of purely functional definitions that might count as religion some universal aspect of human existence (for instance, creating collective effervescence or ranking of one’s values). William James’s definition of religion (“the belief that there is an unseen order, and our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto”) is double-sided in this way, combining a belief in the existence of a distinctive referent with the spiritual disciplines with which one seeks to embody that belief. Geertz’s definition of religion also required both substantive and functional aspects, which he labelled “worldview” and “ethos” (1973: ch. 5). To treat religion as “both/and” in this way is to refuse to abstract one aspect of a complex social reality but instead recognizes, as Geertz puts it, both “the dispositional and conceptual aspects of religious life” (1973: 113). [ 5 ]

These “monothetic-set definitions” treat the concept of religion as referring to a multifaceted or multidimensional complex. It may seem avant garde today to see religion described as a “constellation”, “assemblage”, “network”, or “system”, but in fact to treat religion as a complex is not new. Christian theologians traditionally analyzed the anatomy of their way of life as simultaneously fides , fiducia , and fidelitas . Each of these terms might be translated into English as “faith”, but each actually corresponds to a different dimension of a social practice. Fides refers to a cognitive state, one in which a person assents to a certain proposition and takes it as true. It could be translated as “belief” or “intellectual commitment”. Beliefs or intellectual commitments distinctive to participation in the group will be present whether or not a religious form of life has developed any authoritative doctrines. In contrast, fiducia refers to an affective state in which a person is moved by a feeling or experience that is so positive that it bonds the recipient to its source. It could be translated as “trust” or “emotional commitment”. Trust or emotional commitment will be present whether or not a religious form of life teaches that participation in their practices aims at some particular experience of liberation, enlightenment, or salvation. And fidelitas refers to a conative state in which a person commits themselves to a path of action, a path that typically involves emulating certain role models and inculcating the dispositions that the group considers virtuous. It could be translated as “loyalty” or “submission”. Loyalty or submission will be present whether or not a religious form of life is theistic or teaches moral rules. By the time of Martin Luther, Christian catechisms organized these aspects of religious life in terms of the “three C’s”: the creed one believed, the cult or worship one offered, and the code one followed. When Tillich (1957: ch. 2) argues that religious faith is distorted when one treats it not as a complex but instead as a function of the intellect alone, emotion alone, or the will alone, he is speaking from within this tradition. These three dimensions of religious practices—symbolically, the head, the heart, and the hand—are not necessarily Christian. In fact, until one adds a delimiting criterion like those discussed above, these dimensions are not even distinctively religious. Creed, cult, and code correspond to any pursuit of what a people considers true, beautiful, and good, respectively, and they will be found in any collective movement or cultural tradition. As Melford Spiro says, any human institution will involve a belief system, a value system, and an action system (Spiro 1966: 98).

Many have complained that arguments about how religion should be defined seem unresolvable. To a great extent, however, this is because these arguments have not simply been about a particular aspect of society but rather have served as proxy in a debate about the structure of human subjectivity. There is deep agreement among the rival positions insofar as they presuppose the cognitive-affective-conative model of being human. However, what we might call a “Cartesian” cohort argues that cognition is the root of religious emotions and actions. This cohort includes the “intellectualists” whose influence stretches from Edward Tylor and James Frazer to E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Robin Horton, Jack Goody, Melford Spiro, Stewart Guthrie, and J. Z. Smith, and it shapes much of the emerging field of cognitive science of religion (e.g., Boyer 2001). [ 6 ] A “Humean” cohort disagrees, arguing that affect is what drives human behavior and that cognition serves merely to justify the values one has already adopted. In theology and religious studies, this feelings-centered approach is identified above all with the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Rudolf Otto, and with the tradition called phenomenology of religion, but it has had a place in anthropology of religion since Robert Marett (Tylor’s student), and it is alive and well in the work of moral intuitionists (e.g., Haidt 2012) and affect theory (e.g., Schaefer 2015). A “Kantian” cohort treats beliefs and emotions regarding supernatural realities as relatively unimportant and argues instead that for religion the will is basic. [ 7 ] This approach treats a religion as at root a set of required actions (e.g., Vásquez 2011; C. Smith 2017). These different approaches disagree about the essence of religion, but all three camps operate within a shared account of the human. Thus, when William James describes religion as

the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual [people] in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. (1902 [1985: 34])

he is foregrounding an affective view and playing down (though not denying) the cognitive. When James’s Harvard colleague Alfred North Whitehead corrects him, saying that “[r]eligion is what a person does with their solitariness” (1926: 3, emphasis added), Whitehead stresses the conative, though Whitehead also insists that feelings always play a role. These are primarily disagreements of emphasis that do not trouble this model of human subjectivity. There have been some attempts to leave this three-part framework. For example, some in the Humean camp have suggested that religion is essentially a particular feeling with zero cognition. But that romantic suggestion collapses under the inability to articulate how an affective state can be noncognitive but still identifiable as a particular feeling (Proudfoot 1985).

Although the three-sided model of the true, the beautiful, and the good is a classic account of what any social group explicitly and implicitly teaches, one aspect is still missing. To recognize the always-presupposed material reality of the people who constitute the social group, even when this reality has not been conceptualized by the group’s members, one should also include the contributions of their bodies, habits, physical culture, and social structures. To include this dimension mnemonically, one can add a “fourth C”, for community. Catherine Albanese (1981) may have been the first to propose the idea of adding this materialist dimension. Ninian Smart’s famous anatomy of religion (1996) has seven dimensions, not four, but the two models are actually very similar. Smart calls the affective dimension the “experiential and emotional”, and then divides the cognitive dimension into two (“doctrinal and philosophical” and “narrative and mythological”), the conative into two (“ethical and legal” and “ritual”), and the communal into two (“social and institutional” and “material”). In an attempt to dislodge the focus on human subjectivity found in the three Cs, some have argued that the material dimension is the source of the others. They argue, in other words, that the cognitive, affective, and conative aspects of the members of a social group are not the causes but rather the effects of the group’s structured practices (e.g., Asad 1993: ch. 1–4; Lopez 1998). Some argue that to understand religion in terms of beliefs, or even in terms of any subjective states, reflects a Protestant bias and that scholars of religion should therefore shift attention from hidden mental states to the visible institutional structures that produce them. Although the structure/agency debate is still live in the social sciences, it is unlikely that one can give a coherent account of religion in terms of institutions or disciplinary practices without reintroducing mental states such as judgements, decisions, and dispositions (Schilbrack 2021).

Whether a monothetic approach focuses on one essential property or a set, and whether that essence is the substance or the function of the religion, those using this approach ask a Yes/No question regarding a single criterion. This approach therefore typically produces relatively clear lines between what is and is not religion. Given Tylor’s monothetic definition, for instance, a form of life must include belief in spiritual beings to be a religion; a form of life lacking this property would not be a religion, even if it included belief in a general order of existence that participants took as their ultimate concern, and even if that form of life included rituals, ethics, and scriptures. In a famous discussion, Melford Spiro (1966) works with a Tylorean definition and argues exactly this: lacking a belief in superhuman beings, Theravada Buddhism, for instance, is something other than a religion. [ 8 ] For Spiro, there is nothing pejorative about this classification.

Having combatted the notion that “we” have religion (which is “good”) and “they” have superstition (which is “bad”), why should we be dismayed if it be discovered that that society x does not have religion as we have defined the term? (1966: 88)

That a concept always corresponds to something possessing a defining property is a very old idea. This assumption undergirds Plato’s Euthyphro and other dialogues in which Socrates pushes his interlocutors to make that hidden, defining property explicit, and this pursuit has provided a model for much not only of philosophy, but of the theorizing in all fields. The traditional assumption is that every entity has some essence that makes it the thing it is, and every instance that is accurately described by a concept of that entity will have that essence. The recent argument that there is an alternative structure—that a concept need not have necessary and sufficient criteria for its application—has been called a “conceptual revolution” (Needham 1975: 351), “one of the greatest and most valuable discoveries that has been made of late years in the republic of letters” (Bambrough 1960–1: 207).

In discussions of the concept religion , this anti-essentialist approach is usually traced to Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953, posthumous). Wittgenstein argues that, in some cases, when one considers the variety of instances described with a given concept, one sees that among them there are multiple features that “crop up and disappear”, the result being “a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing” (Wittgenstein 1953, §68). The instances falling under some concepts lack a single defining property but instead have a family resemblance to each other in that each one resembles some of the others in different ways. All polythetic approaches reject the monothetic idea that a concept requires necessary and sufficient criteria. But unappreciated is the fact that polythetic approaches come in different kinds, operating with different logics. Here are three.

The most basic kind of polythetic approach holds that membership in a given class is not determined by the presence of a single crucial characteristic. Instead, the concept maps a cluster of characteristics and, to count as a member of that class, a particular case has to have a certain number of them, no particular one of which is required. To illustrate, imagine that there are five characteristics typical of religions (call this the “properties set”) and that, to be a religion, a form of life has to have a minimum of three of them (call this the “threshold number”). Because this illustration limits the number of characteristics in the properties set, I will call this first kind a “bounded” polythetic approach. For example, the five religion-making characteristics could be these:

belief in superempirical beings or powers,
ethical norms,
worship rituals,
participation believed to bestow benefits on participants, and
those who participate in this form of life see themselves as a distinct community.

Understanding the concept religion in this polythetic way produces a graded hierarchy of instances. [ 9 ] A form of life that has all five of these characteristics would be a prototypical example of a religion. Historically speaking, prototypical examples of the concept are likely to be instances to which the concept was first applied. Psychologically speaking, they are also likely to be the example that comes to mind first to those who use the concept. For instance, robins and finches are prototypical examples of a bird, and when one is prompted to name a bird, people are more likely to name a robin or a finch than an ostrich or a penguin. A form of life that has only four of these characteristics would nevertheless still be a clear example of a religion. [ 10 ] If a form of life has only three, then it would be a borderline example. A form of life that has only two of these characteristics would not be included in the category, though such cases might be considered “quasi-religions” and they might be the most interesting social forms to compare to religions (J. E. Smith 1994). A form of life that only had one of the five characteristics would be unremarkable. The forms of life that had three, four, or five of these characteristics would not be an unrelated set but rather a “family” with multiple shared features, but no one characteristic (not even belief in superempirical beings or powers) possessed by all of them. On this polythetic approach, the concept religion has no essence, and a member of this family that only lacked one of the five characteristics— no matter which one —would still clearly be a religion. [ 11 ] As Benson Saler (1993) points out, one can use this non-essentialist approach not only for the concept religion but also for the elements within a religion (sacrifice, scripture, and so on) and to individual religions (Christianity, Hinduism, and so on).

Some have claimed that, lacking an essence, polythetic approaches to religion make the concept so vague that it becomes useless (e.g., Fitzgerald 2000: 72–3; Martin 2009: 167). Given the focused example of a “bounded” approach in the previous paragraph and the widespread adoption of polythetic approaches in the biological sciences, this seems clearly false. However, it is true that one must pay attention to the parameters at work in a polythetic approach. Using a properties set with only five elements produces a very focused class, but the properties set is simply a list of similarities among at least two of the members of a class, and since the class of religions might have hundreds of members, one could easily create a properties set that is much bigger. Not long after Wittgenstein’s death, a “bounded” polythetic approach was applied to the concept religion by William Alston who identified nine religion-making characteristics. [ 12 ] Southwold (1978) has twelve; Rem Edwards (1972) has fourteen and leaves room for more. But there is no reason why one might not work with a properties set for religion with dozens or even hundreds of shared properties. Half a century ago, Rodney Needham (1975: 361) mentions a computer program that sorted 1500 different bacterial strains according to 200 different properties. As J. Z. Smith (1982: ch. 1) argues, treating the concept religion in this way can lead to surprising discoveries of patterns within the class and the co-appearance of properties that can lead to explanatory theories. The second key parameter for a polythetic approach is the threshold number. Alston does not stipulate the number of characteristics a member of the class has to have, saying simply, “When enough of these characteristics are present to a sufficient degree, we have a religion” (1967: 142). Needham (1975) discusses the sensible idea that each member has a majority of the properties, but this is not a requirement of polythetic approaches. The critics are right that as one increases the size of the properties set and decreases the threshold number, the resulting category becomes more and more diffuse. This can produce a class that is so sprawling that it is difficult to use for empirical study.

Scholars of religion who have used a polythetic approach have typically worked with a “bounded” approach (that is, with a properties set that is fixed), but this is not actually the view for which Wittgenstein himself argues. Wittgenstein’s goal is to draw attention to the fact that the actual use of concepts is typically not bound: “the extension of the concept is not closed by a frontier” (Wittgenstein 1953, §67). We can call this an “open” polythetic approach. To grasp the open approach, consider a group of people who have a concept they apply to a certain range of instances. In time, a member of the group encounters something new that resembles the other instances enough in her eyes that she applies the concept to it. When the linguistic community adopts this novel application, the extension of the concept grows. If their use of the concept is “open”, however, then, as the group adds a new member to the category named by a concept, properties of that new member that had not been part of the earlier uses can be added to the properties set and thereby increase the range of legitimate applications of the concept in the future. We might say that a bounded polythetic approach produces concepts that are fuzzy, and an open polythetic approach produces concepts that are fuzzy and evolving . Timothy Williamson calls this “the dynamic quality of family resemblance concepts” (1994: 86). One could symbolize the shift of properties over time this way:

Wittgenstein famously illustrated this open polythetic approach with the concept game , and he also applied it to the concepts of language and number (Wittgenstein 1953, §67). If we substitute our concept as Wittgenstein’s example, however, his treatment fits religion just as well:

Why do we call something a “religion”? Well, perhaps because it has a direct relationship with several things that have hitherto been called religion; and this can be said to give an indirect relationship to other things we call the same name. (Wittgenstein 1953, §67)

Given an open polythetic approach, a concept evolves in the light of the precedents that speakers recognize, although, over time, what people come to label with the concept can become very different from the original use.

In the academic study of religions, discussions of monothetic and polythetic approaches have primarily been in service of developing a definition of the term. [ 13 ] How can alternate definitions of religion be assessed? If one were to offer a lexical definition (that is, a description of what the term means in common usage, as with a dictionary definition), then the definition one offers could be shown to be wrong. In common usage, for example, Buddhism typically is considered a religion and capitalism typically is not. On this point, some believe erroneously that one can correct a definition by pointing to some fact about the referents of the term. One sees this assumption, for example, in those who argue that the western discovery of Buddhism shows that theistic definitions of religion are wrong (e.g., Southwold 1978: 367). One can correct a real or lexical definition in this way, but not a stipulative definition, that is, a description of the meaning that one assigns to the term. When one offers a stipulative definition, that definition cannot be wrong. Stipulative definitions are assessed not by whether they are true or false but rather by their usefulness, and that assessment will be purpose-relative (cf. Berger 1967: 175). De Muckadell (2014) rejects stipulative definitions of religion for this reason, arguing that one cannot critique them and that they force scholars simply to “accept whatever definition is offered”. She gives the example of a problematic stipulative definition of religion as “ice-skating while singing” which, she argues, can only be rejected by using a real definition of religion that shows the ice-skating definition to be false. However, even without knowing the real essence of religion, one can critique a stipulative definition, either for being less adequate or appropriate for a particular purpose (such as studying forms of life across cultures) or, as with the ice-skating example, for being so far from a lexical definition that it is adequate or appropriate for almost no purpose.

Polythetic definitions are increasingly popular today as people seek to avoid the claim that an evolving social category has an ahistorical essence. [ 14 ] However, the difference between these two approaches is not that monothetic definitions fasten on a single property whereas polythetic definitions recognize more. Monothetic definitions can be multifactorial, as we have seen, and they can recognize just as many properties that are “common” or even “typical” of religions, without being essential. The difference is also not that the monothetic identification of the essence of religion reflects an ethnocentrism that polythetic approaches avoid. The polythetic identification of a prototypical religion is equally ethnocentric. The difference between them, rather, is that a monothetic definition sorts instances with a Yes/No mechanism and is therefore digital, and a polythetic definition produces gradations and is therefore analog. It follows that a monothetic definition treats a set of instances that all possess the one defining property as equally religion, whereas a polythetic definition produces a gray area for instances that are more prototypical or less so. This makes a monothetic definition superior for cases (for example, legal cases) in which one seeks a Yes/No answer. Even if an open polythetic approach accurately describes how a concept operates, therefore, one might, for purposes of focus or clarity, prefer to work with a closed polythetic account that limits the properties set, or even with a monothetic approach that limits the properties set to one. That is, one might judge that it is valuable to treat the concept religion as structurally fuzzy or temporally fluid, but nevertheless place boundaries on the forms of life one will compare.

This strategy gives rise to a third kind of polythetic approach, one that stipulates that one property (or one set of properties) is required. Call this an “anchored” polythetic definition. Consistently treating concepts as tools, Wittgenstein suggests this “anchored” idea when he writes that when we look at the history of a concept,

what we see is something constantly fluctuating … [but we might nevertheless] set over against this fluctuation something more fixed, just as one paints a stationary picture of the constantly altering face of the landscape. (1974: 77)

Given a stipulated “anchor”, a concept will then possess a necessary property, and this property reintroduces essentialism. Such a definition nevertheless still reflects a polythetic approach because the presence of the required property is not sufficient to make something a religion. To illustrate this strategy, one might stipulate that the only forms of life one will consider a religion will include

(thereby excluding nationalism and capitalism, for example), but the presence of this property does not suffice to count this form of life as a religion. Consider the properties set introduced above that also includes

If the threshold number is still three, then to be a religion, a form of life would have to have three of these properties, one of which must be (A) . An anchored definition of religion like this would have the benefits of the other polythetic definitions. For example, it would not produce a clear line between religion and nonreligion but would instead articulate gradations between different forms of life (or between versions of one form of life at different times) that are less or more prototypically religious. However, given its anchor, it would produce a more focused range of cases. [ 15 ] In this way, the use of an anchor might both reflect the contemporary cosmological view of the concept religion and also address the criticism that polythetic approaches make a concept too vague.

Over the past forty years or so, there has been a reflexive turn in the social sciences and humanities as scholars have pulled the camera back, so to speak, to examine the constructed nature of the objects previously taken for granted as unproblematically “there”. Reflexive scholars have argued that the fact that what counts as religion shifts according to one’s definition reflects an arbitrariness in the use of the term. They argue that the fact that religion is not a concept found in all cultures but rather a tool invented at a certain time and place, by certain people for their own purposes, and then imposed on others, reveals its political character. The perception that religion is a politically motivated conceptual invention has therefore led some to skepticism about whether the concept picks out something real in the world. As with instrumentalism in philosophy of science, then, reflection on religion has raised doubts about the ontological status of the referent of one’s technical term.

A watershed text for the reflexive turn regarding the concept religion is Jonathan Z. Smith’s Imagining Religion (1982). Smith engages simultaneously in comparing religions and in analyzing the scholarly practice of comparison. A central theme of his essays is that the concept religion (and subcategories such as world religions , Abrahamic faiths , or nonliterate traditions ) are not scientific terms but often reflect the unrecognized biases of those who use these concepts to sort their world into those who are or are not “like us”. [ 16 ] Smith shows that, again and again, the concept religion was shaped by implicit Protestant assumptions, if not explicit Protestant apologetics. In the short preface to that book, Smith famously says,

[ T ] here is no data for religion . Religion is solely the creation of the scholar’s study. It is created for the scholar’s analytic purposes by his imaginative acts of comparison and generalization. Religion has no independent existence apart from the academy. (1982: xi, italics in original)

This dramatic statement has sometimes been taken as Smith’s assertion that the concept religion has no referent. However, in his actual practice of comparing societies, Smith is not a nonrealist about religion . In the first place, he did not think that the constructed nature of religion was something particular to this concept: any judgement that two things were similar or different in some respect presupposed a process of selection, juxtaposition, and categorization by the observer. This is the process of imagination in his book’s title. Second, Smith did not think that the fact that concepts were human products undermined the possibility that they successfully corresponded to entities in the world: an invented concept for social structures can help one discover religion—not “invent” it—even in societies whose members did not know the concept. [ 17 ] His slogan is that one’s (conceptual) map is not the same as and should be tested and rectified by the (non-conceptual) territory (J. Z. Smith 1978). Lastly, Smith did not think that scholars should cease to use religion as a redescriptive or second-order category to study people in history who lacked a comparable concept. On the contrary, he chastised scholars of religion for resting within tradition-specific studies, avoiding cross-cultural comparisons, and not defending the coherence of the generic concept. He writes that scholars of religion should be

prepared to insist, in some explicit and coherent fashion, on the priority of some generic category of religion. (1995: 412; cf. 1998: 281–2)

Smith himself repeatedly uses religion and related technical terms he invented, such as “locative religion”, to illuminate social structures that operate whether or not those so described had named those structures themselves—social structures that exist, as his 1982 subtitle says, from Babylon to Jonestown.

The second most influential book in the reflexive turn in religious studies is Talal Asad’s Genealogies of Religion (1993). Adopting Michel Foucault’s “genealogical” approach, Asad seeks to show that the concept religion operating in contemporary anthropology has been shaped by assumptions that are Christian (insofar as one takes belief as a mental state characteristic of all religions) and modern (insofar as one treats religion as essentially distinct from politics). Asad’s Foucauldian point is that though people may have all kinds of religious beliefs, experiences, moods, or motivations, the mechanism that inculcates them will be the disciplining techniques of some authorizing power and for this reason one cannot treat religion as simply inner states. Like Smith, then, Asad asks scholars to shift their attention to the concept religion and to recognize that assumptions baked into the concept have distorted our grasp of the historical realities. However, also like Smith, Asad does not draw a nonrealist conclusion. [ 18 ] For Asad, religion names a real thing that would operate in the world even had the concept not been invented, namely, “a coherent existential complex” (2001: 217). Asad’s critical aim is not to undermine the idea that religion exists qua social reality but rather to undermine the idea that religion is essentially an interior state independent of social power. He points out that anthropologists like Clifford Geertz adopt a hermeneutic approach to culture that treats actions as if they are texts that say something, and this approach has reinforced the attention given to the meaning of religious symbols, deracinated from their social and historical context. Asad seeks to balance this bias for the subjective with a disciplinary approach that sees human subjectivity as also the product of social structures. Smith and Asad are therefore examples of scholars who critique the concept religion without denying that it can still refer to something in the world, something that exists even before it is named. They are able, so to speak, to look at one’s conceptual window without denying that the window provides a perspective on things outside.

Other critics have gone farther. They build upon the claims that the concept religion is an invented category and that its modern semantic expansion went hand in hand with European colonialism, and they argue that people should cease treating religion as if it corresponds to something that exists outside the sphere of modern European influence. It is common today to hear the slogan that there is no such “thing” as religion. In some cases, the point of rejecting thing-hood is to deny that religion names a category, all the instances of which focus on belief in the same kind of object—that is, the slogan is a rejection of substantive definitions of the concept (e.g., Possamai 2018: ch. 5). In this case, the objection bolsters a functional definition and does not deny that religion corresponds to a functionally distinct kind of form of life. Here, the “no such thing” claim reflects the unsettled question, mentioned above, about the grounds of substantive definitions of “religion”. In other cases, the point of this objection is to deny that religion names a defining characteristic of any kind—that is, the slogan is a rejection of all monothetic definitions of the concept. Perhaps religion (or a religion, like Judaism) should always be referred to in the plural (“Judaisms”) rather than the singular. In this case, the objection bolsters a polythetic definition and does not deny that religion corresponds to a distinct family of forms of life. Here, the “no such thing” claim rejects the assumption that religion has an essence. Despite their negativity, these two objections to the concept are still realist in that they do not deny that the phrase “a religion” can correspond to a form of life operating in the world.

More radically, one sees a denial of this realism, for example, in the critique offered by Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1962). Smith’s thesis is that in many different cultures, people developed a concept for the individuals they considered pious, but they did not develop a concept for a generic social entity, a system of beliefs and practices related to superempirical realities. Before modernity, “there is no such entity [as religion and] … the use of a plural, or with an article, is false” (1962: 326, 194; cf. 144). Smith recommends dropping religion . Not only did those so described lack the concept, but the use of the concept also treats people’s behavior as if the phrase “a religion” names something in addition to that behavior. A methodological individualist, Smith denies that groups have any reality not explained by the individuals who constitute them. What one finds in history, then, is religious people, and so the adjective is useful, but there are no religious entities above and beyond those people, and so the noun reifies an abstraction. Smith contends that

[n]either religion in general nor any one of the religions … is in itself an intelligible entity, a valid object of inquiry or of concern either for the scholar or for the [person] of faith. (1962: 12)

More radical still are the nonrealists who argue that the concepts religion, religions, and religious are all chimerical. Often drawing on post-structuralist arguments, these critics propose that the notion that religions exist is simply an illusion generated by the discourse about them (e.g., McCutcheon 1997; 2018; Fitzgerald 2000; 2007; 2017; Dubuisson 1998; 2019). As Timothy Fitzgerald writes, the concept religion

picks out nothing and it clarifies nothing … the word has no genuine analytical work to do and its continued use merely contributes to the general illusion that it has a genuine referent …. (2000: 17, 14; also 4)

Advocates of this position sometimes call their approach the “Critical Study of Religion” or simply “Critical Religion”, a name that signals their shift away from the pre-critical assumption that religion names entities in the world and to a focus on who invented the concept, the shifting contrast terms it has had, and the uses to which it has been put. [ 19 ] Like the concept of witches or the concept of biological races (e.g., Nye 2020), religion is a fiction (Fitzgerald 2015) or a fabrication (McCutcheon 2018), a concept invented and deployed not to respond to some reality in the world but rather to sort and control people. The classification of something as “religion” is not neutral but

a political activity, and one particularly related to the colonial and imperial situation of a foreign power rendering newly encountered societies digestible and manipulable in terms congenial to its own culture and agenda. (McCutcheon & Arnal 2012: 107)

As part of European colonial projects, the concept has been imposed on people who lacked it and did not consider anything in their society “their religion”. In fact, the concept was for centuries the central tool used to rank societies on a scale from primitive to civilized. To avoid this “conceptual violence” or “epistemic imperialism” (Dubuisson 2019: 137), scholars need to cease naturalizing this term invented in modern Europe and instead historicize it, uncovering the conditions that gave rise to the concept and the interests it serves. The study of religions outside Europe should end. As Timothy Fitzgerald writes, “The category ‘religion’ should be the object, not the tool, of analysis” (2000: 106; also 2017: 125; cf. McCutcheon 2018: 18).

Inspired by the post-structuralist critiques that religion does not apply to cultures that lack the concept, some historians have argued that the term should no longer be used to describe any premodern societies, even in Europe. For example, Brent Nongbri (2013), citing McCutcheon, argues that though it is common to speak of religions existing in the past, human history until the concept emerged in modernity is more accurately understood as a time “before religion”. His aim is “to dispel the commonly held idea that there is such a thing as ‘ancient religion’” (2013: 8). Citing Nongbri, Carlin Barton and Daniel Boyarin (2016) argue that the Latin religio and the Greek thrēskeia do not correspond to the modern understanding of religion and those studying antiquity should cease translating them with that concept. There was no “Roman religious reality”, they say (2016: 19). These historians suggest that if a culture does not have the concept of X , then the reality of X does not exist for that culture. Boyarin calls this position “nominalism”, arguing that religion is

not in any possible way a “real” object, an object that is historical or ontological, before the term comes to be used. (2017: 25)

These critics are right to draw attention to the fact that in the mind of most contemporary people, the concept religion does imply features that did not exist in ancient societies, but the argument that religion did not exist in antiquity involves a sleight of hand. None of these historians argues that people in antiquity did not believe in gods or other spiritual beings, did not seek to interact with them with sacrifices and other rituals, did not create temples or scriptures, and so on. If one uses Tylor’s definition of religion as belief in spiritual beings or James’s definition of religion as adjusting one’s life to an unseen order— or any of the other definitions considered in this entry —then religion did exist in antiquity. What these historians are pointing out is that ancient practices related to the gods permeated their cultures . As Nongbri puts it,

To be sure, ancient people had words to describe proper reverence of the gods, but … [t]he very idea of “being religious” requires a companion notion of what it would mean to be “not religious” and this dichotomy was not part of the ancient world; (2013: 4)

there was no “discrete sphere of religion existing prior to the modern period” (2019: 1, typo corrected). And Barton and Boyarin:

The point is not … that there weren’t practices with respect to “gods” (of whatever sort) but that these practices were not divided off into separate spheres …. (2016: 4)

Steve Mason also argues that religion did not exist in antiquity since religion is “a voluntary sphere of activity, separate in principle” from politics, work, entertainment, and military service (2019: 29). In short, what people later came to conceptualize as religion was in antiquity not a freestanding entity. The nominalist argument, in other words, adds to the definition of the concept religion a distinctively modern feature (usually some version of “the separation of church and state”), and then argues that the referent of this now-circumscribed concept did not exist in antiquity. Their argument is not that religion did not exist outside modernity, but that modern religion did not exist outside modernity.

These post-structuralist and nominalist arguments that deny that religion is “out there” have a realist alternative. According to this alternative, there is a world independent of human conceptualization, and something can be real and it can even affect one’s life, whether or not any human beings have identified it. This is true of things whose existence does not depend on collective agreement, like biochemical signaling cascades or radioactive beta particles, and it is equally true of things whose existence does depend on collective agreement, like kinship structures, linguistic rules, and religious commitments. A realist about social structures holds that a person can be in a bilateral kinship system, can speak a Uralic language, and can be a member of a religion—even if they lack these concepts.

This realist claim that social structures have existed without being conceptualized raises the question: if human beings had different ways of practicing religion since prehistoric times, why and when did people “finally” create the taxon? Almost every scholar involved in the reflexive turn says that religion is a modern invention. [ 20 ] The critique of the concept religion then becomes part of their critique of modernity. Given the potent uses of religion —to categorize certain cultures as godless and therefore inferior or, later, to categorize certain cultures as superstitious and therefore backwards—the significance of the critique of religion for postcolonial and decolonial scholarship is undeniable. Nevertheless, it is not plausible that modern Europeans were the first to want a generic concept for different ways of interacting with gods. It is easy to imagine that if the way that a people worship their gods permeates their work, art, and politics, and they do not know of alternative ways, then it would not be likely that they would have created a concept for it. There is little need for a generic concept that abstracts a particular aspect of one’s culture as one option out of many until one is in a sustained pluralistic situation. The actions that today are categorized as religious practices—burial rites, the making of offerings, the imitation of divinized ancestors—may have existed for tens of thousands of years without the practitioners experiencing that diversity or caring to name it. Nevertheless, it is likely that a desire to compare the rules by which different people live in relation to their gods would have emerged in many parts of the world long before modernity. One would expect to find people developing such social abstractions as cities and then empires emerged and their cultures came into contact with each other. From this realist perspective, it is no surprise that, according to the detailed and example-filled argument of Barton and Boyarin (2016), the first use of religion as a generic social category, distinct from the concept of politics , for the ways that people interact with gods is not a product of the Renaissance, the Reformation, or modern colonialism at all, but can be found in the writings of Josephus (37–c. 100 CE) and Tertullian (c. 155–c. 220 CE). [ 21 ] From the realist perspective, it is no surprise to see the development of analogous terms in medieval China, centuries before interaction with Europeans (Campany 2003, 2012, 2018) and in medieval Islam (Abbasi 2020, 2021). The emergence of social kinds does not wait on language, and the development of language for social kinds is not only a Western project. If this is right, then the development of a concept for religion as a social genus is at least two thousand years old, though the social reality so labeled would be much older.

Abbasi, Rushain, 2020, “Did Premodern Muslims Distinguish the Religious and the Secular? The Dīn-Dunyā Binary in Medieval Islamic Thought”, Journal of Islamic Studies , 31(2): 185–225. doi:10.1093/jis/etz048
–––, 2021, “Islam and the Invention of Religion: A Study of Medieval Muslim Discourses on Dīn ”, Studia Islamica , 116(1): 1–106.
Albanese, Catherine, 1981, America: Religions and Religion , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Alston, William P., 1964, The Philosophy of Language , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
–––, 1967, “Religion”, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Paul Edwards (ed.), New York: Macmillan.
Asad, Talal, 1993, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam , Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
–––, 2001, “Reading a Modern Classic: W. C. Smith’s The Meaning and End of Religion ”, History of Religions , 40(3): 205–222. doi:10.1086/463633
Asad, Talal and Craig Martin, 2014, “ Genealogies of Religion , Twenty Years On: An Interview with Talal Asad”, Bulletin for the Study of Religion , 43(1): 12–17. doi:10.1558/bsor.v43i1.12
Augustine, City of God, Volume III: Books 8–11 , David S. Wiesen (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968.
Bambrough, Renford, 1960–1, “Universals and Family Resemblances”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 61: 207–222. doi:10.1093/aristotelian/61.1.207
Barton, Carlin A. and Daniel Boyarin, 2016, Imagine No Religion: How Modern Abstractions Hide Ancient Realities , New York: Fordham University Press.
Berger, Peter L., 1967, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion , New York: Doubleday.
–––, 1974, “Some Second Thoughts on Substantive versus Functional Definitions of Religion”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 13(2): 125–133. doi:10.2307/1384374
Biller, Peter, 1985, “Words and the Medieval Notion of ‘Religion’”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History , 36(3): 351–369. 10.1017/S0022046900041142
Boyarin, Daniel, 2017, “Nominalist ‘Judaism’ and the Late-Antique Invention of Religion”, in Religion, Theory, Critique: Classic and Contemporary Approaches and Methodologies , Richard King (ed.), New York: Columbia University Press, ch. 2.
Boyer, Pascal, 2001, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought , New York: Basic Books.
Burley, Mikel, 2019, “‘Being Near Enough to Listen’: Wittgenstein and Interreligious Understanding”, in Interpreting Interreligious Relations with Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Theology, and Religious Studies , Gorazd Andrejč and Daniel H. Weiss (eds), Leiden: Brill, 33–53.
Campany, Robert Ford, 2003, “On the Very Idea of Religions (in the Modern West and Early Medieval China)”, History of Religions , 42(4): 287–319. doi:10.1086/378757
–––, 2012, “Chinese History and Writing about ‘Religion(s)’: Reflections at a Crossroads”, in Dynamics in the History of Religions between Asia and Europe: Encounters, Notions, and Comparative Perspectives , Marion Steineke and Volkhard Krech (eds), Leiden: Brill, 273–294.
–––, 2018, “‘Religious’ as a Category: A Comparative Case Study”, Numen , 65(4): 333–376. doi:10.1163/15685276-12341503
Casadio, Giovanni, 2016, “Historicizing and Translating Religion”, in The Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion , Michael Stausberg and Steven Engler (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Muckadell, Caroline Schaffalitzky, 2014, “On Essentialism and Real Definitions of Religion”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion , 82(2): 495–520. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfu015
Dubuisson, Daniel, 1998 [2003], L’Occident et la religion: mythes, science et idéologie , Bruxelles: Editions Complexe. Translated as The Western Construction of Religion: Myths, Knowledge, and Ideology , William Sayers (trans.), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.
–––, 2019, The Invention of Religions , Martha Cunningham (trans.), Sheffield: Equinox. French original published as L’invention Des Religions: Impérialisme Cognitif et Violence Épistémique , Paris: CNRS éditions, 2020.
Durkheim, Emile, 1912 [1915], Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, le système totémique en Australie , Paris: F. Alcan. Translated as The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, a Study in Religious Sociology , Joseph Ward Swain (trans.), London: George Allen & Unwin, 1915.
Edwards, Rem, 1972, Reason and Religion: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion , New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanavich.
Ferro-Luzzi, Gabriella Eichinger, 1989, “The Polythetic-Prototype Approach to Hinduism”, in Hinduism Reconsidered , Günther-Dietz Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke (eds), New Delhi: Manohar, pp. 294–304.
Finley, Stephen C., Biko Mandela Gray, and Lori Latrice Martin (eds.), 2020, The Religion of White Rage: Religious Fervor, White Workers and the Myth of Black Racial Progress , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fitzgerald, Timothy, 2000, The Ideology of Religious Studies , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2007, Discourse on Civility and Barbarity: A Critical History of Religion and Related Categories , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300093.001.0001
–––, 2015, “Critical Religion and Critical Research on Religion: Religion and Politics as Modern Fictions”, Critical Research on Religion , 3(3): 303–319. doi:10.1177/2050303215613123
–––, 2017, “ The Ideology of Religious Studies Revisited: The Problem with Politics”, in Method and Theory in the Study of Religion: Working Papers from Hannover , Steffen Führding (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 124–152.
Geertz, Armin W., 2016, “Conceptions of Religion in the Cognitive Science of Religion”, in Contemporary Views on Comparative Religion , Peter Antes, Armin W. Geertz, and Mikael Rothstein (eds), Sheffield: Equinox, 127–139.
Geertz, Clifford, 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures , New York: Basic Books.
Griffiths, Paul J., 2000, “The Very Idea of Religion”, First Things , 103(May): 30–35. [ Griffiths 2000 available online ]
Haidt, Jonathan, 2012, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion , New York: Vintage.
Hanegraaff, Wouter J., 1995, “Empirical Method in the Study of Esotericism”, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion , 7(2): 99–129.
Harrison, Peter, 1990, ‘Religion’ and the Religions in the English Enlightenment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511627972
Hick, John, 1989, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
–––, 1993, Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
James, William, 1902 [1985], The Varieties of Religious Experience , London: Longmans, Green, and Co.; reprinted, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
–––, 1912 [1979], The Will to Believe , London: Longmans, Green, and Co.; reprinted, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Kant, Immanuel, 1793 [1934], Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft , Königsberg. Translated as Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone , Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson (trans.), La Salle, IL: The Open Court, 1934.
Laurence, Stephen and Eric Margolis, 1999, “Concepts and Cognitive Science”, in Concepts: Core Readings , Eric Margolis and Stephen Laurence (eds), Cambridge: MIT Press, 1–81.
Lehrich, Christopher I., 2021, Jonathan Z. Smith on Religion , London: Routledge.
Lincoln, Bruce, 2006, Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11 . Second edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ling, Trevor, 1980, Karl Marx and Religion: In Europe and India , London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lofton, Kathryn, 2011, Oprah: The Gospel of an Icon , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
–––, 2012, “Religious History as Religious Studies”, Religion , 42(3): 383–394. doi:10.1080/0048721X.2012.681878
Lopez, Donald S., Jr., 1998, “Belief”, in Critical Terms for Religious Studies , Mark C. Taylor (ed), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lovric, Bruno, 2020, “Pokémon Fandom as a Religion: Construction of Identity and Cultural Consumption in Hong Kong”, in Handbook of Research on the Impact of Fandom in Society and Consumerism , Cheng Lu Wang (ed.), Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 460–479.
Luther, Martin, 1526 [1973], Der Prophet Jonah , Nuremberg. Translated in Lectures on the Minor Prophets, Volume II , Hilton Oswald (ed.), (Luther’s Works, 19), Saint Louis, MO: Concordia.
Marett, Robert Ranulph, 1909, The Threshold of Religion , London: Methuen and Co.
Martin, Craig, 2009, “Delimiting Religion”, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion , 21(2): 157–176. doi:10.1163/157006809X431015
Mason, Steve, 2019, “Our Language and Theirs: ‘Religious’ Categories and Identities”, in Roubekas 2019: 11–31.
Masuzawa, Tomoko, 2005, The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCarraher, Eugene, 2019, The Enchantments of Mammon: How Capitalism Became the Religion of Modernity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McCutcheon, Russell T., 1997, Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on Sui Generis Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2018, Fabricating Religion: Fanfare for the Common e.g. , Berlin: de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110560831
McCutcheon, Russell, and Arnal, William, 2012, The Sacred is the Profane: The Political Nature of “Religion” , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199757114.001.0001
McWhorter, John, 2021, Woke Racism: How a New Religion has Betrayed Black America , New York: Portfolio/Penguin.
Needham, Rodney, 1975, “Polythetic Classification: Convergence and Consequences”, Man , New Series 10(3): 349–369. doi:10.2307/2799807
Nongbri, Brent, 2013, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
–––, 2019, “Introduction: The Present and Future of Ancient Religion”, in Roubekas 2019: 1–8.
Omer, Atalia and Jason A. Springs, 2013, Religious Nationalism: A Reference Handbook , Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Platvoet, J. G., 1982, Comparing Religions: A Limitative Approach , The Hague: Mouton.
Possamai, Adam, 2018, The i-zation of Society, Religion, and Neoliberal Post-Secularization , Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5942-1
Proudfoot, Wayne, 1985, Religious Experience , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
–––, 2000, “William James on an Unseen Order”, Harvard Theological Review , 93(1): 51–66. doi:10.1017/S0017816000016667
Riesebrodt, Martin, 2007 [2010], Cultus und Heilsversprechen: eine Theorie der Religionen , München : Verlag C.H. Beck. Translated as The Promise of Salvation: A Theory of Religion , Steven Rendall (trans.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Roubekas, Nickolas P. (ed.), 2019, Theorizing “Religion” in Antiquity , (Studies in Ancient Religion and Culture), Bristol, UK: Equinox Publishing.
Saler, Benson, 1977, “Supernatural as a Western Category”, Ethos , 5(1): 31–53. doi:10.1525/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040
–––, 1993, Conceptualizing Religion: Immanent Anthropologists, Transcendent Natives, and Unbounded Categories , Leiden: E. J. Brill.
–––, 1999, “Family Resemblance and the Definition of Religion”, Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques , 25(3): 391–404.
–––, 2021, The Construction of the Supernatural in Euro-American Cultures: Something Nice about Vampires , London: Bloomsbury.
Schaefer, Donovan O., 2015, Religious Affects: Animals, Evolution, and Power , Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Schellenberg, J. L., 2005, Prolegomena to a Philosophy of Religion , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Schilbrack, Kevin, 2013, “What Isn’t Religion?”, Journal of Religion , 93(3): 291–318. doi:10.1086/670276
–––, 2018, “Mathematics and the Definitions of Religion”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 83(2): 145–160. doi:10.1007/s11153-017-9621-6
–––, 2021, “Religious Practices and the Formation of Subjects”, in The Future of the Philosophy of Religion , M. David Eckel, C. Allen Speight, and Troy DuJardin (eds), (Boston Studies in Philosophy, Religion and Public Life 8), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 43–60. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44606-2_4
Smart, Ninian, 1996, Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World’s Beliefs , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Smith, Christian, 2017, Religion: What it is, How it Works, and Why it Matters , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, John E., 1994, Quasi-religions: Humanism, Marxism, and Nationalism , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Smith, Jonathan Z., 1978, Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions , Leiden: Brill.
–––, 1982, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1995, “Afterword: Religious Studies: Whither (Wither) and Why?”, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion , 7(4): 407–414. doi:10.1163/157006895X00171
–––, 1998, “Religion, Religions, Religious”, Critical Terms for Religious Studies , Mark C. Taylor (ed.), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, 1962, The Meaning and End of Religion , New York: Macmillan.
Southwold, Martin, 1978, “Buddhism and the Definition of Religion”, Man , New Series 13(3): 362–379. doi:10.2307/2801935
Spiro, Melford, 1966, “Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation”, in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion , Michael Banton (ed.), London: Tavistock, 85–126.
Taves, Ann, 2009, Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and other Special Things. , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tillich, Paul, 1957, Dynamics of Faith , New York: Harper and Row.
–––, 1963, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions , New York: Columbia University Press.
Turner, Bryan S., 2011, Religion and Modern Society: Citizenship, Secularization and the State , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511975660
Tylor, Edward Burnett, 1871 [1970], Primitive Culture , two vols., London: John Murray, 1871; vol. 2 reprinted as Religion in Primitive Culture , Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1970.
Vásquez, Manuel A., 2011, More than Belief: A Materialist Theory of Religion , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weed, Eric, 2019, The Religion of White Supremacy in the United States , Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Whitehead, Alfred North, 1926, Religion in the Making , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, Timothy, 1994, Vagueness , London: Routledge.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1953 [2009], Philosophical Investigations , G. E. M. Armstrong (trans.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell; reprinted: 4 th edition, Malden: Blackwell, 2009.
–––, 1974, Philosophical Grammar , Anthony Kenny (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Nye, Malory, 2020, “ Religion is Not a Thing ”, Religion Bites , 31 January 2020.
The Critical Religion Association
The Religious Studies Project
Centre for Critical Realism

definitions | religion: philosophy of | skepticism | Wittgenstein, Ludwig

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Origin, Nature, and Structure of Beliefs System

First Online: 21 May 2022

Cite this chapter

Ibigbolade S. Aderibigbe 3

402 Accesses

Religion is found in practically all known human societies in the world. It is also one of the most important institutional structures that make up the total human social system. There is hardly a known race in the world, regardless of how primitive it might be, without a form of one religion or the other to which the people try to communicate with the divine. As an inseparable part of the total life experience of a people, religion understandably permeates every sphere of the people’s lives. It encompasses their culture, the social, the political, and the ethical, as well as the individual and societal expectations. It is instructive that, in spite of Western misrepresentation and misinterpretation of African Traditional Religion, the religion has served as the cornerstone of every aspect of African “ways of life.” This is why Africans have been said to be in all things religious. This comprehensive hold of African Traditional Religion on the holistic African life experiences is vividly located in the nature and structure of the religion that ultimately determines the beliefs and practices adhered to by its practitioners. This chapter therefore focuses on presenting these beliefs and practices through a discourse that provides an illuminating awareness and understanding of the religion. African Traditional Religion will provide an awareness of African customs and belief systems. This chapter in addition discusses the challenges facing the religion in today’s contemporary world religious space and projects the nature of the sustainability of the religion into the future

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

G. Aderibigbe, “African Religious Beliefs” in A. O. K. Noah, ed. Fundamentals of General Studies . Ibadan: Rex Charles Publications. 1995 p. 93

J. S. Mbiti, African Religion and Philosophy . London: Heinemann Educational Press. 1982. p. 43

G. Aderibigbe, Opp, cit . p.96.

E. B. Idowu, Olodumare God in Yoruba Belief. London: SCM Press. 1962.

J. S. Mbiti, op. cit.

E. B. Idowu, African Traditional Religion: A Definition . London: SCM Press. 1973. p.37.

P. Baudin, Fetishism and Fetish Worshippers. New York: Benzinger Brothers. 1885.

E. B. Idowu. Opp. Cit.

D. H. Westermann, African Christianity . London: Oxford University Press1937.

E. B. Idowu. Opp. Cit . p. 49.

R. S. Rattery, Religion and Art in Ashanti . London: Oxford University Press. 1923.

J. O. Awolalu and P. A. Dopamu, West African Traditional Religion . Ibadan: Onibonoje Press. 1979.

S. A. Adewale, The Religion of the Yoruba: A Phenomenological Analysis . Ibadan: Day star press. 1988.

J. S. Mbiti, opp cit.

A. B. Jacobs, A Text Book on African Traditional Religion. Ibadan: Aromolaran Press. 1977.

J. S. Mbiti, African Concept of God. London: SMC Press. 1970.

S. O. Abioye, “African Traditional Religion: An Introduction” in G. Aderibigbe and D. Aiyegoyin, eds. Religion: Study and Practice . Ibadan: Olu Akin Press, 2001. P.119.

R. S. Rattray, opp. Cit.

S. O. Abioye, opp. Cit.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Religion, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Ibigbolade S. Aderibigbe

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ibigbolade S. Aderibigbe .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of History, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Toyin Falola

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Aderibigbe, I.S. (2022). Origin, Nature, and Structure of Beliefs System. In: Aderibigbe, I.S., Falola, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of African Traditional Religion. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89500-6_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89500-6_2

Published : 21 May 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-89499-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-89500-6

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Myself — Personal Beliefs

Essays About Personal Beliefs

My personal belief system, my core beliefs: guiding principles, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Sociological Study of Religion

The things i value the most, nobody is born to be perfect, right choices: the bridge to success , let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Three Most Important Mottos that I Live My Life by

Hard decisions as a part of our lives, the power of personal strengths, the role of compassion in my life, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Complacency - The Cancer of Our Society

Integrity and what it means to me, the impact of beliefs on decision-making regarding the reception of medical help, change is crucial to improve ourselves, love and what it means to me, what is excellence to me, analysis of my political ideology, the five principles of social impact, how let our dreams come true, the fear of being judged in my life, money can't buy happiness and satisfaction, defining my identity and its components, the things i am grateful for in my life, my personal view on religion, the perspectives of my personal philosophy, the reasons why i am against death penalty, effects of defining god as the unknown, discussion of the question 'who am i', importance of college for me, my personal definition of integrity and morals, relevant topics.

Personal Goals
About Myself
Self Assessment
Personal Strengths
Self Reflection
Professionalism
Forgiveness

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

13.1 What Is Religion?

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Distinguish between religion, spirituality, and worldview.
Describe the connections between witchcraft, sorcery, and magic.
Identify differences between deities and spirits.
Identify shamanism.
Describe the institutionalization of religion in state societies.

Defining Religion, Spirituality, and Worldview

An anthropological inquiry into religion can easily become muddled and hazy because religion encompasses intangible things such as values, ideas, beliefs, and norms. It can be helpful to establish some shared signposts. Two researchers whose work has focused on religion offer definitions that point to diverse poles of thought about the subject. Frequently, anthropologists bookend their understanding of religion by citing these well-known definitions.

French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) utilized an anthropological approach to religion in his study of totemism among Indigenous Australian peoples in the early 20th century. In his work The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915), he argues that social scientists should begin with what he calls “simple religions” in their attempts to understand the structure and function of belief systems in general. His definition of religion takes an empirical approach and identifies key elements of a religion: “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” (47). This definition breaks down religion into the components of beliefs, practices, and a social organization—what a shared group of people believe and do.

The other signpost used within anthropology to make sense of religion was crafted by American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926–2006) in his work The Interpretation of Cultures (1973). Geertz’s definition takes a very different approach: “A religion is: (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic” (90). Geertz’s definition, which is complex and holistic and addresses intangibles such as emotions and feelings, presents religion as a different paradigm , or overall model, for how we see systems of belief. Geertz views religion as an impetus to view and act upon the world in a certain manner. While still acknowledging that religion is a shared endeavor, Geertz focuses on religion’s role as a potent cultural symbol. Elusive, ambiguous, and hard to define, religion in Geertz’s conception is primarily a feeling that motivates and unites groups of people with shared beliefs. In the next section, we will examine the meanings of symbols and how they function within cultures, which will deepen your understanding of Geertz’s definition. For Geertz, religion is intensely symbolic.

When anthropologists study religion, it can be helpful to consider both of these definitions because religion includes such varied human constructs and experiences as social structures, sets of beliefs, a feeling of awe, and an aura of mystery. While different religious groups and practices sometimes extend beyond what can be covered by a simple definition, we can broadly define religion as a shared system of beliefs and practices regarding the interaction of natural and supernatural phenomena. And yet as soon as we ascribe a meaning to religion, we must distinguish some related concepts, such as spirituality and worldview.

Over the last few years, a growing number of Americans have been choosing to define themselves as spiritual rather than religious. A 2017 Pew Research Center study found that 27 percent of Americans identify as “spiritual but not religious,” which is 8 percentage points higher than it was in 2012 (Lipka and Gecewicz 2017). There are different factors that can distinguish religion and spirituality, and individuals will define and use these terms in specific ways; however, in general, while religion usually refers to shared affiliation with a particular structure or organization, spirituality normally refers to loosely structured beliefs and feelings about relationships between the natural and supernatural worlds. Spirituality can be very adaptable to changing circumstances and is often built upon an individual’s perception of the surrounding environment.

Many Americans with religious affiliation also use the term spirituality and distinguish it from their religion. Pew found in 2017 that 48 percent of respondents said they were both religious and spiritual. Pew also found that 27 percent of people say religion is very important to them (Lipka and Gecewicz 2017).

Another trend pertaining to religion in the United States is the growth of those defining themselves as nones , or people with no religious affiliation. In a 2014 survey of 35,000 Americans from 50 states, Pew found that nearly a quarter of Americans assigned themselves to this category (Pew Research Center 2015). The percentage of adults assigning themselves to the “none” category had grown substantially, from 16 percent in 2007 to 23 percent in 2014; among millennials, the percentage of nones was even higher, at 35 percent (Lipka 2015). In a follow-up survey, participants were asked to identity their major reasons for choosing to be nonaffiliated; the most common responses pointed to the growing politicization of American churches and a more critical and questioning stance toward the institutional structure of all religions (Pew Research Center 2018). It is important, however, to point out that nones are not the same as agnostics or atheists. Nones may hold traditional and/or nontraditional religious beliefs outside of membership in a religious institution. Agnosticism is the belief that God or the divine is unknowable and therefore skepticism of belief is appropriate, and atheism is a stance that denies the existence of a god or collection of gods. Nones, agnostics, and atheists can hold spiritual beliefs, however. When anthropologists study religion, it is very important for them to define the terms they are using because these terms can have different meanings when used outside of academic studies. In addition, the meaning of terms may change. As the social and political landscape in a society changes, it affects all social institutions, including religion.

Even those who consider themselves neither spiritual nor religious hold secular, or nonreligious, beliefs that structure how they view themselves and the world they live in. The term worldview refers to a person’s outlook or orientation; it is a learned perspective, which has both individual and collective components, on the nature of life itself. Individuals frequently conflate and intermingle their religious and spiritual beliefs and their worldviews as they experience change within their lives. When studying religion, anthropologists need to remain aware of these various dimensions of belief. The word religion is not always adequate to identify an individual’s belief systems.

Like all social institutions, religion evolves within and across time and cultures—even across early human species! Adapting to changes in population size and the reality of people’s daily lives, religions and religious/spiritual practices reflect life on the ground . Interestingly, though, while some institutions (such as economics) tend to change radically from one era to another, often because of technological changes, religion tends to be more viscous , meaning it tends to change at a much slower pace and mix together various beliefs and practices. While religion can be a factor in promoting rapid social change, it more commonly changes slowly and retains older features while adding new ones. In effect, religion contains within it many of its earlier iterations and can thus be quite complex.

Witchcraft, Sorcery, and Magic

People in Western cultures too often think of religion as a belief system associated with a church, temple, or mosque, but religion is much more diverse. In the 1960s, anthropologists typically used an evolutionary model for religion that associated less structured religious systems with simple societies and more complex forms of religion with more complex political systems. Anthropologists noticed that as populations grew, all forms of organization—political, economic, social, and religious—became more complex as well. For example, with the emergence of tribal societies, religion expanded to become not only a system of healing and connection with both animate and inanimate things in the environment but also a mechanism for addressing desire and conflict. Witchcraft and sorcery, both forms of magic, are more visible in larger-scale, more complex societies.

The terms witchcraft and sorcery are variously defined across disciplines and from one researcher to another, yet there is some agreement about common elements associated with each. Witchcraft involves the use of intangible (not material) means to cause a change in circumstances to another person. It is normally associated with practices such as incantations, spells, blessings, and other types of formulaic language that, when pronounced, causes a transformation. Sorcery is similar to witchcraft but involves the use of material elements to cause a change in circumstances to another person. It is normally associated with such practices as magical bundles, love potions, and any specific action that uses another person’s personal leavings (such as their hair, nails, or even excreta). While some scholars argue that witchcraft and sorcery are “dark,” negative, antisocial actions that seek to punish others, ethnographic research is filled with examples of more ambiguous or even positive uses as well. Cultural anthropologist Alma Gottlieb , who did fieldwork among the Beng people of Côte d’Ivoire in Africa, describes how the king that the Beng choose as their leader must always be a witch himself, not because of his ability to harm others but because his mystical powers allow him to protect the Beng people that he rules (2008). His knowledge and abilities allow him to be a capable ruler.

Some scholars argue that witchcraft and sorcery may be later developments in religion and not part of the earliest rituals because they can be used to express social conflict. What is the relationship between conflict, religion, and political organization? Consider what you learned in Social Inequalities . As a society’s population rises, individuals within that society have less familiarity and personal experience with each other and must instead rely on family reputation or rank as the basis for establishing trust. Also, as social diversity increases, people find themselves interacting with those who have different behaviors and beliefs from their own. Frequently, we trust those who are most like ourselves, and diversity can create a sense of mistrust. This sense of not knowing or understanding the people one lives, works, and trades with creates social stress and forces people to put themselves into what can feel like risky situations when interacting with one another. In such a setting, witchcraft and sorcery provide a feeling of security and control over other people. Historically, as populations increased and sociocultural institutions became larger and more complex, religion evolved to provide mechanisms such as witchcraft and sorcery that helped individuals establish a sense of social control over their lives.

Magic is essential to both witchcraft and sorcery, and the principles of magic are part of every religion. The anthropological study of magic is considered to have begun in the late 19th century with the 1890 publication of The Golden Bough , by Scottish social anthropologist Sir James G. Frazer . This work, published in several volumes, details the rituals and beliefs of a diverse range of societies, all collected by Frazer from the accounts of missionaries and travelers. Frazer was an armchair anthropologist, meaning that he did not practice fieldwork. In his work, he provided one of the earliest definitions of magic, describing it as “a spurious system of natural law as well as a fallacious guide of conduct” (Frazer [1922] 1925, 11). A more precise and neutral definition depicts magic as a supposed system of natural law whose practice causes a transformation to occur. In the natural world—the world of our senses and the things we hear, see, smell, taste, and touch—we operate with evidence of observable cause and effect. Magic is a system in which the actions or causes are not always empirical. Speaking a spell or other magical formula does not provide observable (empirical) effects. For practitioners of magic, however, this abstract cause and effect is just as consequential and just as true.

Frazer refers to magic as “sympathetic magic” because it is based on the idea of sympathy, or common feeling, and he argued that there are two principles of sympathetic magic: the law of similarity and the law of contagion. The law of similarity is the belief that a magician can create a desired change by imitating that change. This is associated with actions or charms that mimic or look like the effects one desires, such as the use of an effigy that looks like another person or even the Venus figurine associated with the Upper Paleolithic period, whose voluptuous female body parts may have been used as part of a fertility ritual. By taking actions on the stand-in figure, the magician is able to cause an effect on the person believed to be represented by this figure. The law of contagion is the belief that things that have once been in contact with each other remain connected always, such as a piece of jewelry owned by someone you love, a locket of hair or baby tooth kept as a keepsake, or personal leavings to be used in acts of sorcery.

This classification of magic broadens our understanding of how magic can be used and how common it is across all religions. Prayers and special mortuary artifacts ( grave goods ) indicate that the concept of magic is an innately human practice and not associated solely with tribal societies. In most cultures and across religious traditions, people bury or cremate loved ones with meaningful clothing, jewelry, or even a photo. These practices and sentimental acts are magical bonds and connections among acts, artifacts, and people. Even prayers and shamanic journeying (a form of metaphysical travel) to spirits and deities, practiced in almost all religious traditions, are magical contracts within people’s belief systems that strengthen practitioners’ faith. Instead of seeing magic as something outside of religion that diminishes seriousness, anthropologists see magic as a profound human act of faith.

Supernatural Forces and Beings

As stated earlier, religion typically regards the interaction of natural and supernatural phenomena. Put simply, a supernatural force is a figure or energy that does not follow natural law. In other words, it is nonempirical and cannot be measured or observed by normal means. Religious practices rely on contact and interaction with a wide range of supernatural forces of varying degrees of complexity and specificity.

In many religious traditions, there are both supernatural deities, or gods who are named and have the ability to change human fortunes, and spirits, who are less powerful and not always identified by name. Spirit or spirits can be diffuse and perceived as a field of energy or an unnamed force.

Practitioners of witchcraft and sorcery manipulate a supposed supernatural force that is often referred to by the term mana , first identified in Polynesia among the Maori of New Zealand ( mana is a Maori word). Anthropologists see a similar supposed sacred energy field in many different religious traditions and now use this word to refer to that energy force. Mana is an impersonal (unnamed and unidentified) force that can adhere for varying periods of time to people or animate and inanimate objects to make them sacred. One example is in the biblical story that appears in Mark 5:25–30, in which a woman suffering an illness simply touches Jesus’s cloak and is healed. Jesus asks, “Who touched my clothes?” because he recognizes that some of this force has passed from him to the woman who was ill in order to heal her. Many Christians see the person of Jesus as sacred and holy from the time of his baptism by the Holy Spirit. Christian baptism in many traditions is meant as a duplication or repetition of Christ’s baptism.

There are also named and known supernatural deities. A deity is a god or goddess. Most often conceived as humanlike, gods (male) and goddesses (female) are typically named beings with individual personalities and interests. Monotheistic religions focus on a single named god or goddess, and polytheistic religions are built around a pantheon, or group, of gods and/or goddesses, each usually specializing in a specific sort of behavior or action. And there are spirits , which tend to be associated with very specific (and narrower) activities, such as earth spirits or guardian spirits (or angels). Some spirits emanate from or are connected directly to humans, such as ghosts and ancestor spirits , which may be attached to specific individuals, families, or places. In some patrilineal societies, ancestor spirits require a great deal of sacrifice from the living. This veneration of the dead can consume large quantities of resources. In the Philippines, the practice of venerating the ancestor spirits involves elaborate house shrines, altars, and food offerings. In central Madagascar, the Merino people practice a regular “turning of the bones,” called famidihana . Every five to seven years, a family will disinter some of their deceased family members and replace their burial clothing with new, expensive silk garments as a form of remembrance and to honor all of their ancestors. In both of these cases, ancestor spirits are believed to continue to have an effect on their living relatives, and failure to carry out these rituals is believed to put the living at risk of harm from the dead.

Religious Specialists

Religious groups typically have some type of leadership, whether formal or informal. Some religious leaders occupy a specific role or status within a larger organization, representing the rules and regulations of the institution, including norms of behavior. In anthropology, these individuals are called priests , even though they may have other titles within their religious groups. Anthropology defines priests as full-time practitioners, meaning they occupy a religious rank at all times, whether or not they are officiating at rituals or ceremonies, and they have leadership over groups of people. They serve as mediators or guides between individuals or groups of people and the deity or deities. In religion-specific terms, anthropological priests may be called by various names, including titles such as priest, pastor, preacher, teacher, imam (Islam), and rabbi (Judaism).

Another category of specialists is prophets . These individuals are associated with religious change and transformation, calling for a renewal of beliefs or a restructuring of the status quo. Their leadership is usually temporary or indirect, and sometimes the prophet is on the margins of a larger religious organization. German sociologist Max Weber (1947) identified prophets as having charisma , a personality trait that conveys authority:

Charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These as such are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. (358–359)

A third type of specialist is shamans . Shamans are part-time religious specialists who work with clients to address very specific and individual needs by making direct contact with deities or supernatural forces. While priests will officiate at recurring ritual events, a shaman, much like a medical psychologist, addresses each individual need. One exception to this is the shaman’s role in subsistence, usually hunting. In societies where the shaman is responsible for “calling up the animals” so that hunters will have success, the ritual may be calendrical , or occurring on a cyclical basis. While shamans are medical and religious specialists within shamanic societies, there are other religions that practice forms of shamanism as part of their own belief systems. Sometimes, these shamanic practitioners will be known by terms such as pastor or preacher , or even layperson . And some religious specialists serve as both part-time priests and part-time shamans, occupying more than one role as needed within a group of practitioners. You will read more about shamanism in the next section.

One early form of religion is shamanism , a practice of divination and healing that involves soul travel, also called shamanic journeying, to connect natural and supernatural realms in nonlinear time. Associated initially with small-scale societies, shamanic practices are now known to be embedded in many of the world’s religions. In some cultures, shamans are part-time specialists, usually drawn into the practice by a “calling” and trained in the necessary skills and rituals though an apprenticeship. In other cultures, all individuals are believed to be capable of shamanic journeying if properly trained. By journeying—an act frequently initiated by dance, trance, drumbeat, song, or hallucinogenic substances—the shaman is able to consult with a spiritual world populated by supernatural figures and deceased ancestors. The term itself, šamán , meaning “one who knows,” is an Evenki word, originating among the Evenk people of northern Siberia. Shamanism, found all over the world, was first studied by anthropologists in Siberia.

While shamanism is a healing practice, it conforms to the anthropological definition of religion as a shared set of beliefs and practices pertaining to the natural and supernatural. Cultures and societies that publicly affirm shamanism as a predominant and generally accepted practice often are referred to as shamanic cultures . Shamanism and shamanic activity, however, are found within most religions. The world’s two dominant mainstream religions both contain a type of shamanistic practice: the laying on of hands in Christianity, in which a mystical healing and blessing is passed from one person to another, and the mystical Islamic practice of Sufism, in which the practitioner, called a dervish, dances by whirling faster and faster in order to reach a trance state of communing with the divine. There are numerous other shared religious beliefs and practices among different religions besides shamanism. Given the physical and social evolution of our species, it is likely that we all share aspects of a fundamental religious orientation and that religious changes are added on to, rather than used to replace, earlier practices such as shamanism.

Indigenous shamanism continues to be a significant force for healing and prophecy today and is the predominant religious mode in small-scale, subsistence-based societies, such as bands of gatherers and hunters. Shamanism is valued by hunters as an intuitive way to locate wild animals, often depicted as “getting into the mind of the animal.” Shamanism is also valued as a means of healing, allowing individuals to discern and address sources of physical and social illness that may be affecting their health. One of the best-studied shamanic healing practices is that of the !Kung San in Central Africa. When individuals in that society suffer physical or socioemotional distress, they practice n/um tchai , a medicine dance, to draw up spiritual forces within themselves that can be used for shamanic self-healing (Marshall [1969] 2009).

Shamanistic practices remain an important part of the culture of modern Inuit people in the Canadian Arctic, particularly their practices pertaining to whale hunting. Although these traditional hunts were prohibited for a time, Inuit people were able to legally resume them in 1994. In a recent study of Inuit whaling communities in the Canadian territory of Nunavut, cultural anthropologists Frédéric Laugrand and Jarich Oosten (2013) found that although hunting technology has changed—whaling spears now include a grenade that, when aimed properly, allows for a quick and more humane death—many shamanistic beliefs and social practices pertaining to the hunt endure. The sharing of maktak or muktuk (whale skin and blubber) with elders is believed to lift their spirits and prolong their lives by connecting them to their ancestors and memories of their youth, the communal sharing of whale meat connects families to each other, and the relationship between hunter and hunted mystically sustains the populations of both. Inuit hunters believe that the whale “gives itself” to the hunter in order to establish this relationship, and when the hunter and community gratefully and humbly consume the catch, this ties the whales to the people and preserves them both. While Laugrand and Oosten found that most Inuit communities practice modern-day Christianity, the shamanistic values of their ancestors continue to play a major role in their understanding of both the whale hunt and what it means to be Inuit today. Their practice and understanding of religion incorporate both the church and their ancestral beliefs.

Above all, shamanism reflects the principles and practice of mutuality and balance, the belief that all living things are connected to each other and can have an effect on each other. This is a value that reverberates through almost all other religious systems as well. Concepts such as stewardship (caring for and nurturing resources), charity (providing for the needs of others), and justice (concern and respect for others and their rights) are all valued in shamanism.

The Institutionalization of Religion

Shamanism is classified as animism , a worldview in which spiritual agency is assigned to all things, including natural elements such as rocks and trees. Sometimes associated with the idea of dual souls—a day soul and a night soul, the latter of which can wander in dreams—and sometimes with unnamed and disembodied spirits believed to be associated with living and nonliving things, animism was at first understood by anthropologists as a primitive step toward more complex religions. In his work Primitive Culture (1871), British anthropologist Sir Edward Tylor , considered the first academic anthropologist, identified animism as a proto-religion, an evolutionary beginning point for all religions. As population densities increased and societies developed more complex forms of social organization, religion mirrored many of these changes.

With the advent of state societies, religion became institutionalized. As population densities increased and urban areas emerged, the structure and function of religion shifted into a bureaucracy, known as a state religion . State religions are formal institutions with full-time administrators (e.g., priests, pastors, rabbis, imams), a set doctrine of beliefs and regulations, and a policy of growth by seeking new practitioners through conversion. While state religions continued to exhibit characteristics of earlier forms, they were now structured as organizations with a hierarchy, including functionaries at different levels with different specializations. Religion was now administered as well as practiced. Similar to the use of mercenaries as paid soldiers in a state army, bureaucratic religions include paid positions that may not require subscribing to the belief system itself. Examples of early state religions include the pantheons of Egypt and Greece. Today, the most common state religions are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Rather than part-time shamans, tribal and state religions are often headed by full-time religious leaders who administer higher levels within the religious bureaucracy. With institutionalization, religion began to develop formalized doctrines , or sets of specific and usually rigid principles or teachings, that would be applied through the codification of a formal system of laws. And, unlike earlier religious forms, state religions are usually defined not by birthright but by conversion. Using proselytization , a recruitment practice in which members actively seek converts to the group, state religions are powerful institutions in society. They bring diverse groups of people together and establish common value systems.

There are two common arrangements between political states and state religions. In some instances, such as contemporary Iran, the religious institution and the state are one, and religious leaders head the political structure. In other societies, there is an explicit separation between religion and state. The separation has been handled differently across nation-states. In some states, the political government supports a state religion (or several) as the official religion(s). In some of these cases, the religious institution will play a role in political decision-making from local to national levels. In other state societies with a separation between religion and state, religious institutions will receive favors, such as subsidies, from state governments. This may include tax or military exemptions and privileged access to resources. It is this latter arrangement that we see in the United States, where institutions such as the Department of Defense and the IRS keep lists of officially recognized religions with political and tax-exempt status.

Among the approximately 200 sovereign nation-states worldwide, there are many variations in the relationship between state and religion, including societies that have political religions, where the state or state rulers are considered divine and holy. In North Korea today, people practice an official policy of juche , which means self-reliance and independence. A highly nationalist policy, it has religious overtones, including reverence and obeisance to the state leader (Kim Jong Un) and unquestioning allegiance to the North Korean state. An extreme form of nationalism, juche functions as a political religion with the government and leader seen as deity and divine. Unlike in a theocracy, where the religious structure has political power, in North Korea, the political structure is the practiced religion.

Historically, relationships between religious institution and state have been extremely complex, with power arrangements shifting and changing over time. Today, Christian fundamentalism is playing an increasingly political role in U.S. society. Since its bureaucratization, religion has had a political role in almost every nation-state. In many state societies, religious institutions serve as charity organizations to meet the basic needs of many citizens, as educational institutions offering both mainstream and alternative pedagogies, and as community organizations to help mobilize groups of people for specific actions. Although some states—such as Cuba, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union—have declared atheism as their official policy during certain historical periods, religion has never fully disappeared in any of them. Religious groups, however, may face varying levels of oppression within state societies. The Uighurs are a mostly Muslim ethnic group of some 10 million people in northwestern China. Since 2017, when Chinese president Xi Jinping issued an order that all religions in China should be Chinese in their orientation, the Uighurs have faced mounting levels of oppression, including discrimination in state services. There have been recent accusations of mass sterilizations and genocide by the Chinese government against this ethnic minority (see BBC News 2021). During periods of state oppression, religion tends to break up into smaller units practiced at a local or even household level.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Jennifer Hasty, David G. Lewis, Marjorie M. Snipes
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Introduction to Anthropology
Publication date: Feb 23, 2022
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/13-1-what-is-religion

© Dec 20, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Email Signup

Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology

World Religions Overview Essay

The Movement of Religion and Ecology: Emerging Field and Dynamic Force

Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, Yale University

Originally published in the Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology

As many United Nations reports attest, we humans are destroying the life-support systems of the Earth at an alarming rate. Ecosystems are being degraded by rapid industrialization and relentless development. The data keeps pouring in that we are altering the climate and toxifying the air, water, and soil of the planet so that the health of humans and other species is at risk. Indeed, the Swedish scientist, Johan Rockstrom, and his colleagues, are examining which planetary boundaries are being exceeded. (Rockstrom and Klum, 2015)

The explosion of population from 3 billion in 1960 to more then 7 billion currently and the subsequent demands on the natural world seem to be on an unsustainable course. The demands include meeting basic human needs of a majority of the world’s people, but also feeding the insatiable desire for goods and comfort spread by the allure of materialism. The first is often called sustainable development; the second is unsustainable consumption. The challenge of rapid economic growth and consumption has brought on destabilizing climate change. This is coming into full focus in alarming ways including increased floods and hurricanes, droughts and famine, rising seas and warming oceans.

Can we turn our course to avert disaster? There are several indications that this may still be possible. On September 25, 2015 after the Pope addressed the UN General Assembly, 195 member states adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). On December 12, 2015 these same members states endorsed the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Both of these are important indications of potential reversal. The Climate Agreement emerged from the dedicated work of governments and civil society along with business partners. The leadership of UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, and many others was indispensable.

One of the inspirations for the Climate Agreement and for the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals was the release of the Papal Encyclical, Laudato Si’ in June 2015. The encyclical encouraged the moral forces of concern for both the environment and people to be joined in “integral ecology”. “The cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor” are now linked as was not fully visible before. (Boff, 1997 and in the encyclical) Many religious and environmental communities are embracing this integrated perspective and will, no doubt, foster it going forward. The question is how can the world religions contribute more effectively to this renewed ethical momentum for change. For example, what will be their long-term response to population growth? As this is addressed in the article by Robert Wyman and Guigui Yao, we will not take it up here. Instead, we will consider some of the challenges and possibilities amid the dream of progress and the lure of consumption.

Challenges: The Dream of Progress and the Religion of Consumption

Consumption appears to have become an ideology or quasi-religion, not only in the West but also around the world. Faith in economic growth drives both producers and consumers. The dream of progress is becoming a distorted one. This convergence of our unlimited demands with an unquestioned faith in economic progress raises questions about the roles of religions in encouraging, discouraging, or ignoring our dominant drive toward appropriately satisfying material needs or inappropriately indulging material desires. Integral ecology supports the former and critiques the latter.

Moreover, a consumerist ideology depends upon and simultaneously contributes to a worldview based on the instrumental rationality of the human. That is, the assumption for decision-making is that all choices are equally clear and measurable. Market based metrics such as price, utility, or efficiency are dominant. This can result in utilitarian views of a forest as so much board feet or simply as a mechanistic complex of ecosystems that provide services to the human.

One long-term effect of this is that the individual human decision-maker is further distanced from nature because nature is reduced to measurable entities for profit or use. From this perspective we humans may be isolated in our perceived uniqueness as something apart from the biological web of life. In this context, humans do not seek identity and meaning in the numinous beauty of the world, nor do they experience themselves as dependent on a complex of life-supporting interactions of air, water, and soil. Rather, this logic sees humans as independent, rational decision-makers who find their meaning and identity in systems of management that now attempt to co-opt the language of conservation and environmental concern. Happiness is derived from simply creating and having more material goods. This perspective reflects a reading of our current geological period as human induced by our growth as a species that is now controlling the planet. This current era is being called the “Anthropocene” because of our effect on the planet in contrast to the prior 12,000 year epoch known as the Holocene.

This human capacity to imagine and implement a utilitarian-based worldview regarding nature has undermined many of the ancient insights of the world’s religious and spiritual traditions. For example, some religions, attracted by the individualistic orientations of market rationalism and short-term benefits of social improvement, seized upon material accumulation as containing divine sanction. Thus, Max Weber identified the rise of Protestantism with an ethos of inspirited work and accumulated capital.

Weber also identified the growing disenchantment from the world of nature with the rise of global capitalism. Karl Marx recognized the “metabolic rift” in which human labor and nature become alienated from cycles of renewal. The earlier mystique of creation was lost. Wonder, beauty, and imagination as ways of knowing were gradually superseded by the analytical reductionism of modernity such that technological and economic entrancement have become key inspirations of progress.

Challenges: Religions Fostering Anthropocentrism

This modern, instrumental view of matter as primarily for human use arises in part from a dualistic Western philosophical view of mind and matter. Adapted into Jewish, Christian and Islamic religious perspectives, this dualism associates mind with the soul as a transcendent spiritual entity given sovereignty and dominion over matter. Mind is often valued primarily for its rationality in contrast to a lifeless world. At the same time we ensure our radical discontinuity from it.

Interestingly, views of the uniqueness of the human bring many traditional religious perspectives into sync with modern instrumental rationalism. In Western religious traditions, for example, the human is seen as an exclusively gifted creature with a transcendent soul that manifests the divine image and likeness. Consequently, this soul should be liberated from the material world. In many contemporary reductionist perspectives (philosophical and scientific) the human with rational mind and technical prowess stands as the pinnacle of evolution. Ironically, religions emphasizing the uniqueness of the human as the image of God meet market-driven applied science and technology precisely at this point of the special nature of the human to justify exploitation of the natural world. Anthropocentrism in various forms, religious, philosophical, scientific, and economic, has led, perhaps inadvertently, to the dominance of humans in this modern period, now called the Anthropocene. (It can be said that certain strands of the South Asian religions have emphasized the importance of humans escaping from nature into transcendent liberation. However, such forms of radical dualism are not central to the East Asian traditions or indigenous traditions.)

From the standpoint of rational analysis, many values embedded in religions, such as a sense of the sacred, the intrinsic value of place, the spiritual dimension of the human, moral concern for nature, and care for future generations, are incommensurate with an objectified monetized worldview as they not quantifiable. Thus, they are often ignored as externalities, or overridden by more pragmatic profit-driven considerations. Contemporary nation-states in league with transnational corporations have seized upon this individualistic, property-based, use-analysis to promote national sovereignty, security, and development exclusively for humans.

Possibilities: Systems Science

Yet, even within the realm of so-called scientific, rational thought, there is not a uniform approach. Resistance to the easy marriage of reductionist science and instrumental rationality comes from what is called systems science and new ecoogy. By this we refer to a movement within empirical, experimental science of exploring the interaction of nature and society as complex dynamic systems. This approach stresses both analysis and synthesis – the empirical act of observation, as well as placement of the focus of study within the context of a larger whole. Systems science resists the temptation to take the micro, empirical, reductive act as the complete description of a thing, but opens analysis to the large interactive web of life to which we belong, from ecosystems to the biosphere. There are numerous examples of this holistic perspective in various branches of ecology. And this includes overcoming the nature-human divide. (Schmitz 2016) Aldo Leopold understood this holistic interconnection well when he wrote: “We abuse land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” (Leopold, 1966)

Collaboration of Science and Religion

Within this inclusive framework, scientists have been moving for some time beyond simply distanced observations to engaged concern. The Pope’s encyclical, Laudato Si , has elevated the level of visibility and efficacy of this conversation between science and religion as perhaps never before on a global level. Similarly, many other statements from the world religions are linking the wellbeing of people and the planet for a flourishing future. For example, the World Council of Churches has been working for four decades to join humans and nature in their program on Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation.

Many scientists such as Thomas Lovejoy, E.O. Wilson, Jane Lubchenco, Peter Raven, and Ursula Goodenough recognize the importance of religious and cultural values when discussing solutions to environmental challenges. Other scientists such as Paul Ehrlich and Donald Kennedy have called for major studies of human behavior and values in relation to environmental issues. ( Science , July 2005) This has morphed into the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere. (mahb.standford.edu). Since 2009 the Ecological Society of America has established an Earth Stewardship Initiative with yearly panels and publications. Many environmental studies programs are now seeking to incorporate these broader ethical and behavioral approaches into the curriculum.

Possibilities: Extinction and Religious Response

The stakes are high, however, and the path toward limiting ourselves within planetary boundaries is not smooth. Scientists are now reporting that because of the population explosion, our consuming habits, and our market drive for resources, we are living in the midst of a mass extinction period. This period represents the largest loss of species since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago when the Cenozoic period began. In other words, we are shutting down life systems on the planet and causing the end of this large-scale geological era with little awareness of what we are doing or its consequences.

As the cultural historian Thomas Berry observed some years ago, we are making macrophase changes on the planet with microphase wisdom. Indeed, some people worry that these rapid changes have outstripped the capacity of our religions, ethics, and spiritualities to meet the complex challenges we are facing.

The question arises whether the wisdom traditions of the human community, embedded in institutional religions and beyond, can embrace integral ecology at the level needed? Can the religions provide leadership into a synergistic era of human-Earth relations characterized by empathy, regeneration, and resilience? Or are religions themselves the wellspring of those exclusivist perspectives in which human societies disconnect themselves from other groups and from the natural world? Are religions caught in their own meditative promises of transcendent peace and redemptive bliss in paradisal abandon? Or does their drive for exclusive salvation or truth claims cause them to try to overcome or convert the Other?

Authors in this volume are exploring these issues within religious and spiritual communities regarding the appropriate responses of the human to our multiple environmental and social challenges. What forms of symbolic visioning and ethical imagining can call forth a transformation of consciousness and conscience for our Earth community? Can religions and spiritualites provide vision and inspiration for grounding and guiding mutually enhancing human-Earth relations? Have we arrived at a point where we realize that more scientific statistics on environmental problems, more legislation, policy or regulation, and more economic analysis, while necessary, are no longer sufficient for the large-scale social transformations needed? This is where the world religions, despite their limitations, surely have something to contribute.

Such a perspective includes ethics, practices, and spiritualities from the world’s cultures that may or may not be connected with institutional forms of religion. Thus spiritual ecology and nature religions are an important part of the discussions and are represented in this volume. Our own efforts have focused on the world religions and indigenous traditions. Our decade long training in graduate school and our years of living and traveling throughout Asia and the West gave us an early appreciation for religions as dynamic, diverse, living traditions. We are keenly aware of the multiple forms of syncretism and hybridization in the world religions and spiritualties. We have witnessed how they are far from monolithic or impervious to change in our travels to more than 60 countries.

Problems and Promise of Religions

Several qualifications regarding the various roles of religion should thus be noted. First, we do not wish to suggest here that any one religious tradition has a privileged ecological perspective. Rather, multiple interreligious perspectives may be the most helpful in identifying the contributions of the world religions to the flourishing of life.

We also acknowledge that there is frequently a disjunction between principles and practices: ecologically sensitive ideas in religions are not always evident in environmental practices in particular civilizations. Many civilizations have overused their environments, with or without religious sanction.

Finally, we are keenly aware that religions have all too frequently contributed to tensions and conflict among various groups, both historically and at present. Dogmatic rigidity, inflexible claims of truth, and misuse of institutional and communal power by religions have led to tragic consequences in many parts of the globe.

Nonetheless, while religions have often preserved traditional ways, they have also provoked social change. They can be limiting but also liberating in their outlooks. In the twentieth century, for example, religious leaders and theologians helped to give birth to progressive movements such as civil rights for minorities, social justice for the poor, and liberation for women. Although the world religions have been slow to respond to our current environmental crises, their moral authority and their institutional power may help effect a change in attitudes, practices, and public policies. Now the challenge is a broadening of their ethical perspectives.

Traditionally the religions developed ethics for homicide, suicide, and genocide. Currently they need to respond to biocide, ecocide, and geocide. (Berry, 2009)

Retrieval, Reevaluation, Reconstruction

There is an inevitable disjunction between the examination of historical religious traditions in all of their diversity and complexity and the application of teachings, ethics, or practices to contemporary situations. While religions have always been involved in meeting contemporary challenges over the centuries, it is clear that the global environmental crisis is larger and more complex than anything in recorded human history. Thus, a simple application of traditional ideas to contemporary problems is unlikely to be either possible or adequate. In order to address ecological problems properly, religious and spiritual leaders, laypersons and academics have to be in dialogue with scientists, environmentalists, economists, businesspeople, politicians, and educators. Hence the articles in this volume are from various key sectors.

With these qualifications in mind we can then identify three methodological approaches that appear in the still emerging study of religion and ecology. These are retrieval, reevaluation, and reconstruction. Retrieval involves the scholarly investigation of scriptural and commentarial sources in order to clarify religious perspectives regarding human-Earth relations. This requires that historical and textual studies uncover resources latent within the tradition. In addition, retrieval can identify ethical codes and ritual customs of the tradition in order to discover how these teachings were put into practice. Traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) is an important part of this for all the world religions, especially indigenous traditions.

With reevaluation, traditional teachings are evaluated with regard to their relevance to contemporary circumstances. Are the ideas, teachings, or ethics present in these traditions appropriate for shaping more ecologically sensitive attitudes and sustainable practices? Reevaluation also questions ideas that may lead to inappropriate environmental practices. For example, are certain religious tendencies reflective of otherworldly or world-denying orientations that are not helpful in relation to pressing ecological issues? It asks as well whether the material world of nature has been devalued by a particular religion and whether a model of ethics focusing solely on human interactions is adequate to address environmental problems.

Finally, reconstruction suggests ways that religious traditions might adapt their teachings to current circumstances in new and creative ways. These may result in new syntheses or in creative modifications of traditional ideas and practices to suit modern modes of expression. This is the most challenging aspect of the emerging field of religion and ecology and requires sensitivity to who is speaking about a tradition in the process of reevaluation and reconstruction. Postcolonial critics have appropriately highlighted the complex issues surrounding the problem of who is representing or interpreting a religious tradition or even what constitutes that tradition. Nonetheless, practitioners and leaders of particular religions are finding grounds for creative dialogue with scholars of religions in these various phases of interpretation.

Religious Ecologies and Religious Cosmologies

As part of the retrieval, reevaluation, and reconstruction of religions we would identify “religious ecologies” and “religious cosmologies” as ways that religions have functioned in the past and can still function at present. Religious ecologies are ways of orienting and grounding whereby humans undertake specific practices of nurturing and transforming self and community in a particular cosmological context that regards nature as inherently valuable. Through cosmological stories humans narrate and experience the larger matrix of mystery in which life arises, unfolds, and flourishes. These are what we call religious cosmologies. These two, namely religious ecologies and religious cosmologies, can be distinguished but not separated. Together they provide a context for navigating life’s challenges and affirming the rich spiritual value of human-Earth relations.

Human communities until the modern period sensed themselves as grounded in and dependent on the natural world. Thus, even when the forces of nature were overwhelming, the regenerative capacity of the natural world opened a way forward. Humans experienced the processes of the natural world as interrelated, both practically and symbolically. These understandings were expressed in traditional environmental knowledge, namely, in hunting and agricultural practices such as the appropriate use of plants, animals, and land. Such knowledge was integrated in symbolic language and practical norms, such as prohibitions, taboos, and limitations on ecosystems’ usage. All this was based in an understanding of nature as the source of nurturance and kinship. The Lakota people still speak of “all my relations” as an expression of this kinship. Such perspectives will need to be incorporated into strategies to solve environmental problems. Humans are part of nature and their cultural and religious values are critical dimensions of the discussion.

Multidisciplinary approaches: Environmental Humanities

We are recognizing, then, that the environmental crisis is multifaceted and requires multidisciplinary approaches. As this book indicates, the insights of scientific modes of analytical and synthetic knowing are indispensable for understanding and responding to our contemporary environmental crisis. So also, we need new technologies such as industrial ecology, green chemistry, and renewable energy. Clearly ecological economics is critical along with green governance and legal policies as articles in this volume illustrate.

In this context it is important to recognize different ways of knowing that are manifest in the humanities, such as artistic expressions, historical perspectives, philosophical inquiry, and religious understandings. These honor emotional intelligence, affective insight, ethical valuing, and spiritual awakening.

Environmental humanities is a growing and diverse area of study within humanistic disciplines. In the last several decades, new academic courses and programs, research journals and monographs, have blossomed. This broad-based inquiry has sparked creative investigation into multiple ways, historically and at present, of understanding and interacting with nature, constructing cultures, developing communities, raising food, and exchanging goods.

It is helpful to see the field of religion and ecology as part of this larger emergence of environmental humanities. While it can be said that environmental history, literature, and philosophy are some four decades old, the field of religions and ecology began some two decades ago. It was preceded, however, by work among various scholars, particularly Christian theologians. Some eco-feminists theologians, such as Rosemary Ruether and Sallie McFague, Mary Daly, and Ivone Gebara led the way.

The Emerging Field of Religion and Ecology

An effort to identify and to map religiously diverse attitudes and practices toward nature was the focus of a three-year international conference series on world religions and ecology. Organized by Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, ten conferences were held at the Harvard Center for the Study of World Religions from 1996-1998 that resulted in a ten volume book series (1997-2004). Over 800 scholars of religion and environmentalists participated. The director of the Center, Larry Sullivan, gave space and staff for the conferences. He chose to limit their scope to the world religions and indigenous religions rather than “nature religions”, such as wicca or paganism, which the organizers had hoped to include.

Culminating conferences were held in fall 1998 at Harvard and in New York at the United Nations and the American Museum of Natural History where 1000 people attended and Bill Moyers presided. At the UN conference Tucker and Grim founded the Forum on Religion and Ecology, which is now located at Yale. They organized a dozen more conferences and created an electronic newsletter that is now sent to over 12,000 people around the world. In addition, they developed a major website for research, education, and outreach in this area (fore.yale.edu). The conferences, books, website, and newsletter have assisted in the emergence of a new field of study in religion and ecology. Many people have helped in this process including Whitney Bauman and Sam Mickey who are now moving the field toward discussing the need for planetary ethics. A Canadian Forum on Religion and Ecology was established in 2002, a European Forum for the Study of Religion and the Environment was formed in 2005, and a Forum on Religion and Ecology @ Monash in Australia in 2011.

Courses on this topic are now offered in numerous colleges and universities across North America and in other parts of the world. A Green Seminary Initiative has arisen to help educate seminarians. Within the American Academy of Religion there is a vibrant group focused on scholarship and teaching in this area. A peer-reviewed journal, Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology , is celebrating its 25 th year of publication. Another journal has been publishing since 2007, the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture . A two volume Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature edited by Bron Taylor has helped shape the discussions, as has the International Society for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture he founded. Clearly this broad field of study will continue to expand as the environmental crisis grows in complexity and requires increasingly creative interdisciplinary responses.

The work in religion and ecology rests in an intersection between the academic field within education and the dynamic force within society. This is why we see our work not so much as activist, but rather as “engaged scholarship” for the flourishing of our shared planetary life. This is part of a broader integration taking place to link concerns for both people and the planet. This has been fostered in part by the twenty-volume Ecology and Justice Series from Orbis Books and with the work of John Cobb, Larry Rasmussen, Dieter Hessel, Heather Eaton, Cynthia Moe-Loebeda, and others. The Papal Encyclical is now highlighting this linkage of eco-justice as indispensable for an integral ecology.

The Dynamic Force of Religious Environmentalism

All of these religious traditions, then, are groping to find the languages, symbols, rituals, and ethics for sustaining both ecosystems and humans. Clearly there are obstacles to religions moving into their ecological, eco-justice, and planetary phases. The religions are themselves challenged by their own bilingual languages, namely, their languages of transcendence, enlightenment, and salvation; and their languages of immanence, sacredness of Earth, and respect for nature. Yet, as the field of religion and ecology has developed within academia, so has the force of religious environmentalism emerged around the planet. Roger Gottlieb documents this in his book A Greener Faith . (Gottlieb 2006) The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew held international symposia on “Religion, Science and the Environment” focused on water issues (1995-2009) that we attended. He has made influential statements on this issue for 20 years. The Parliament of World Religions has included panels on this topic since 1998 and most expansively in 2015. Since 1995 the UK based Alliance of Religion and Conservation (ARC), led by Martin Palmer, has been doing significant work with religious communities around under the patronage of Prince Philip.

These efforts are recovering a sense of place, which is especially clear in the environmental resilience and regeneration practices of indigenous peoples. It is also evident in valuing the sacred pilgrimage places in the Abrahamic traditions (Jerusalem, Rome, and Mecca) both historically and now ecologically. So also East Asia and South Asia attention to sacred mountains, caves, and other pilgrimage sites stands in marked contrast to massive pollution.

In many settings around the world religious practitioners are drawing together religious ways of respecting place, land, and life with understanding of environmental science and the needs of local communities. There have been official letters by Catholic Bishops in the Philippines and in Alberta, Canada alarmed by the oppressive social conditions and ecological disasters caused by extractive industries. Catholic nuns and laity in North America, Australia, England, and Ireland sponsor educational programs and conservation plans drawing on the eco-spiritual vision of Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme. Also inspired by Berry and Swimme, Paul Winter’s Solstice celebrations and Earth Mass at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York Winter have been taking place for three decades.

Even in the industrial growth that grips China, there are calls from many in politics, academia, and NGOs to draw on Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist perspectives for environmental change. In 2008 we met with Pan Yue, the Deputy Minister of the Environment, who has studied these traditions and sees them as critical to Chinese environmental ethics. In India, Hinduism is faced with the challenge of clean up of sacred rivers, such as the Ganges and the Yamuna. To this end in 2010 with Hindu scholars, David Haberman and Christopher Chapple, we organized a conference of scientists and religious leaders in Delhi and Vrindavan to address the pollution of the Yamuna.

Many religious groups are focused on climate change and energy issues. For example, InterFaith Power and Light and GreenFaith are encouraging religious communities to reduce their carbon footprint. Earth Ministry in Seattle is leading protests against oil pipelines and terminals. The Evangelical Environmental Network and other denominations are emphasizing climate change as a moral issue that is disproportionately affecting the poor. In Canada and the US the Indigenous Environmental Network is speaking out regarding damage caused by resource extraction, pipelines, and dumping on First Peoples’ Reserves and beyond. All of the religions now have statements on climate change as a moral issue and they were strongly represented in the People’s Climate March in September 2015. Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, published the first collection of articles on religion and climate change from two conferences we organized there. (Tucker & Grim, 2001)

Striking examples of religion and ecology have occurred in the Islamic world. In June 2001 and May 2005 the Islamic Republic of Iran led by President Khatami and the United Nations Environment Programme sponsored conferences in Tehran that we attended. They were focused on Islamic principles and practices for environmental protection. The Iranian Constitution identifies Islamic values for ecology and threatens legal sanctions. One of the earliest spokespersons for religion and ecology is the Iranian scholar, Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Fazlun Khalid in the UK founded the Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Science. In Indonesia in 2014 a fatwa was issued declaring that killing an endangered species is prohibited.

These examples illustrate ways in which an emerging alliance of religion and ecology is occurring around the planet. These traditional values within the religions now cause them to awaken to environmental crises in ways that are strikingly different from science or policy. But they may find interdisciplinary ground for dialogue in concerns for eco-justice, sustainability, and cultural motivations for transformation. The difficulty, of course, is that the religions are often preoccupied with narrow sectarian interests. However, many people, including the Pope, are calling on the religions to go beyond these interests and become a moral leaven for change.

Renewal Through Laudato Si’

Pope Francis is highlighting an integral ecology that brings together concern for humans and the Earth. He makes it clear that the environment can no longer be seen as only an issue for scientific experts, or environmental groups, or government agencies alone. Rather, he invites all people, programs and institutions to realize these are complicated environmental and social problems that require integrated solutions beyond a “technocratic paradigm” that values an easy fix. Within this integrated framework, he urges bold new solutions.

In this context Francis suggests that ecology, economics, and equity are intertwined. Healthy ecosystems depend on a just economy that results in equity. Endangering ecosystems with an exploitative economic system is causing immense human suffering and inequity. In particular, the poor and most vulnerable are threatened by climate change, although they are not the major cause of the climate problem. He acknowledges the need for believers and non-believers alike to help renew the vitality of Earth’s ecosystems and expand systemic efforts for equity.

In short, he is calling for “ecological conversion” from within all the world religions. He is making visible an emerging worldwide phenomenon of the force of religious environmentalism on the ground, as well as the field of religion and ecology in academia developing new ecotheologies and ecojustice ethics. This diverse movement is evoking a change of mind and heart, consciousness and conscience. Its expression will be seen more fully in the years to come.

The challenge of the contemporary call for ecological renewal cannot be ignored by the religions. Nor can it be answered simply from out of doctrine, dogma, scripture, devotion, ritual, belief, or prayer. It cannot be addressed by any of these well-trod paths of religious expression alone. Yet, like so much of our human cultures and institutions the religions are necessary for our way forward yet not sufficient in themselves for the transformation needed. The roles of the religions cannot be exported from outside their horizons. Thus, the individual religions must explain and transform themselves if they are willing to enter into this period of environmental engagement that is upon us. If the religions can participate in this creativity they may again empower humans to embrace values that sustain life and contribute to a vibrant Earth community.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berry, Thomas. 2009. The Sacred Universe: Earth Spirituality and Religion in the 21st Century (New York: Columbia University Press).

Boff, Leonardo. 1997. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books).

Gottlieb, Roger. 2006. A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planetary Future . (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Grim, John and Mary Evelyn Tucker, eds. 2014. Ecology and Religion. (Washington, DC: Island Press).

Leopold, Aldo. 1966. A Sand County Almanac . (Oxford University Press).

Rockstrom, Johan and Mattias Klum. 2015. Big World, Small Planet: Abundance Within Planetary Boundaries . (New Haven: Yale University Press)

Schmitz, Oswald. 2016. The New Ecology: Science for a Sustainable World. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

Taylor, Bron, ed. 2008. Encyclopedia of Religion, Nature, and Culture. (London: Bloomsbury).

Tucker, Mary Evelyn. 2004. Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter their Ecological Phase . (Chicago: Open Court).

Tucker, Mary Evelyn and John Grim, eds. 2001 Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change? Daedalus Vol. 130, No.4.

Header photo: ARC procession to UN Faith in Future Meeting, Bristol, UK

Essay on Religions of the World

7 Works Cited

The Religions of the World Religion is big part of human life. Every area of the world has some kind of religion or belief system. Religion is defined as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices” (“Religion” Def.2). With such a large amount of religions today, religion is widely variegated, usually with divisions in each one. Despite the large amount of religions, I will only be covering only three religions: Christianity , Islam , and Buddhism. Christians are those who believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came down to earth from Heaven in order to save humanity from its’ sins. The reason for Jesus dying for the human race is traced back to the beginning of time, in the Garden of …show more content…

His entire life was devoted to delivering the message that God had given Him, the theme of which was forgiveness and a new life, in which we could have eternal life through the death of Christ (John 3:16). His means of sharing this message were often in parables, “earthly stories with heavenly meanings,” but at other times they were blunt and straightforward (Bowker 141). There was much division among the people because of Him, and the religious leaders of the time wanted to kill Him, mainly because He claimed to be Son of God, while He looked like any other human to them (John 7:8-9, 8:40-53). Their anger rose and, eventually, they set out to capture Him and crucify Him. Jesus’ Death was a tragic event indeed. There was so much division about Him that His own people had decided to vote in favor of crucifying Him, and that is exactly what happened (John 19:6-7). Jesus was lead to Golgotha, while carrying His own cross, to be crucified. As horrific as this was for many, it fulfilled all the scriptures pointing to Jesus. Because He had lived a sinless life, He became the perfect and final sacrifice for humanities’ sin (1 Peter 2:22). Jesus was raised on the third day after His death, showing His supremacy over the power of Death. Obviously, a main belief of Christians is that of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Christians also believe in the teachings Jesus’ gave them while He lived His life on the earth, which are recorded in the four gospels in the New Testament

Frederick Douglass Religion

A true Christian believes Jesus Christ died and rose from the grave to save us from our sins. A true Christian believes He is the only way to heaven.

Christian Foundations By: Kathleen Fischer & Thomas Hart

Jesus' death was an act of love that represents his final testimony to his trust in the faithful and loving God he proclaimed as his father.

World Religions Dbq Essay

More than three quarters of the world are following a religion, we as human beings use religions as a way of answering the unexplainable questions in life like what happens after we die. What’s similar between these religions even though they’re so spread out? Some believe in gods, some believe in giving up your worldly desires, and some provide a social hierarchy to live your life on.

Christianity, Christianity And Christianity

Religion is the belief and worship of a higher power which is in control of the universe. The most popular religions in the world today are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. All four of these religions teach peace. However, followers do not always get along with each other peacefully. All of these religions have a moral code to live by and encourage devotion and prayer.

Compare And Contrast Ancient Rome And Christianity

Jesus Christ is believed to be the son of God and is considered the human version of God. Christianity also believes in the Holy Spirit, which is with us always in everything we do. The Christian faith is based on the belief that Jesus was born in a manger of the virgin Mary. It is believed that he lived a perfect life where he made no mistakes or sins. Jesus was believed to have died on a cross for our sins while being spat upon and cursed with a crown of thorns upon his head. Next, Jesus was buried in a tomb and rose from the dead three days later. Finally, Jesus descended into heaven to be with his father once again. Christians believe that in order to achieve eternal life you must accept Jesus into your life by believing that all this information is true and you must ask for forgiveness of your sins. Christians believe that Jesus will return one day to earth and will judge everyone and will take all Christians back to heaven with him to be with his father God. Christianity began to take off in Ancient Rome because of St. Paul. Paul began by creating churches in Asia Minor and Greece. He later began to take his teachings to ancient Rome. The poor people in ancient Rome began to believe in Christianity first. Christianity was illegal in Ancient Rome. If followers were caught by Rome they faced death for their actions. Therefore, Christians had to meet in secret so they were not killed for their beliefs. In 313 AD the Emperor Constantine, finally

Jesus Is It Our Faith? Essay

When it comes to the crucifixion of Jesus, there are many different arguments that appeal to specific peoples’ beliefs or arguments as to what makes the most sense. What really is the determining factor though when we are deciding how we portray Jesus’ death? Is it our faith? Is it what logically makes the most sense to us? Is it what we are taught growing up by our parents or Sunday school? Could it possibly a mixture of all of those factors? Either way, we all have different beliefs and ideas when it comes to His death. One of the most popular arguments for Jesus’ crucifixion is that the reason he died was purely in place of us due to our sins; he was the ultimate sacrifice. In this paper, I will argue from a logical standpoint that not only does this theory not make sense, but Jesus’ life and choices were related to his crucifixion as well. The most logical circumstance is that, instead, Jesus died as a ransom.

The Three Major Religions Essay

Arabia to Islam. All practicing Muslims accept belief in the ‘Six Articles of Faith’ and are

How Has Religion Changed Over Time Essay

Christianity is a monotheistic (believing in one God) religion, which is based on the “teachings of Jesus.” Deemed the son of God, Jesus walked around town helping those in need and preaching the words of his father, served as a role model, exemplifying to others how to live life selflessly. His life was short lived, “at the age 33, he was crucified on the cross.” Christians believe that God sacrificed his only son for the forgiveness of their own sins, which they give thanks for throughout the year at Christmas, Lent, and Easter. One of the most prominent figures in the Christian church is the cross. The most important book in Christianity is the Bible, which they consider sacred and holy. It is a doctrine that holds all Jesus’s teachings, which have been broken up into 2 parts: “old testament and new testament.” In the Bible, individuals will find a set of guidelines (10

Buddhism Vs Christianity Essay example

Religion is a fundamental element of human society. It is what binds a country, society or group of individuals together. However, in some instances it destroys unity amoungst these. Religion is a belief in a superhuman entity(s) which control(s) the universe. Every religion has its differences but most strive for a just life and the right morals. The three major groups are the primal regions which consist of African, Aboriginal and Native American religions, Asian which consist of South Eastern Asian religions and Abrahamic religions which consist of Middle Eastern religions. The foci of this essay are the differences between the Abrahamic religion, Christianity, and the Asian region Buddhism as well as making reference to the Islamic

The History and Source of Christianity Essay

Christianity is the largest faith group in the world today. The word Christianity came from “Christ,” which meant the “Anointed One” and the central point of

Christianity: A Monotheistic Religion

Christianity dominated the western culture for centuries. It is a major religion in Europe and America. The belief focused on the life of Jesus. Gospels are primary sources about Jesus’s life. The gospels were written about a hundred years after his death. His teachings specified the themes of god’s kingdom, the love of god and love of neighbor. His popularity was seen dangerous by Jewish religion and the roman government which lead to his execution. Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. They also believe to be forgiven of sin and eternal

Essay on Contrasting The Religions of Christianity and Hinduism

Christianity was founded in the early first century. It is centered around the belief of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the largest religion in the world with around 2 billion followers. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. This means that Christians believe in only one

Essay Christianity

Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Most followers of Christianity, called Christians, are members of one of three major groups--Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox. These groups have different beliefs about Jesus and His teachings. But all consider Jesus central to their religion. Most Christians believe God sent Jesus into the world as the Savior. Christianity teaches that humanity can achieve salvation through Jesus.

Essay on Christianity: Salvation by Grace

8 Works Cited

Christianity is a faith based on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Fisher, 1991) Christianity is a one God religion as presented in the New Testament. Today, Christianity and the church are culturally diverse, even in the aspects of race. It is even said that Sunday mornings is the most segregated time in the world. There is one central belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, all Christians can come to this conclusion. Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins and that we are all under the judgment of God because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Other religions may often depict that it is only necessary to do some good when it comes to God in order to

My Religion Essay

Christians believe that Jesus is both God and man, incarnation of God, and man -gives man two natures, physical and divined that they are united in one person. Thus the mystery of God becoming a human being, Jesus, and suffered and died, and Mary (Jesus' mother) was the mother of God. God resolved himself to mankind in 3 ways, as God the father, God the sun and the Holy Spirit. From this we can see that Christianity is based on the

Religious Studies: Shinto’ Belief System Essay

Introduction, personal opinion, works cited.

Shinto, which is a belief system that believes in the presence of spirits, deities or essences which embody nature and various aspects related to everyday living (i.e., fortune, victory, etc.), started in 660 BC. This belief system is unique in that practitioners need not express actual faith in the practice. Instead, merely performing the rituals when required (i.e., visiting shrines during New Year’s Day, festivals, etc.) is all that is necessary.

This differs significantly from a vast majority of current belief systems such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and the Hindu religion wherein some form of the profession of faith is necessary to be considered a member of their system of beliefs (Starrs, 34-37).

Through the analysis of Jensen and Blok, it can be stated that Shinto is more closely related to animism (i.e., the belief that animals, plants, etc. possess a spiritual essence within the natural world) (Jensen and Blok, 84-115).

Shimazono explains that the ceremonies and various rituals utilized by Shinto priests are somewhat similar to those of druidic rites and rituals from Britain as well as the shamanistic rituals from Native Americans (Shimazono, 1077-1098).

The similarity is based on how prosperity, rich harvests, and other similar conditions are believed by that practice who Shinto, Animism, druidic rites and shamanism to be influenced by adherence to rites and ceremonies (Shimazono, 1077-1098).

Thus, for Shinto “priests and priestesses” natural events such as lightning, wind, earthquakes and other similar natural phenomena are supposedly influenced through proper rituals with failure to adhere to such traditions often resulting in disasters for various regions.

They believe that appeasing these spiritual entities is the responsibility of Shinto shrines with proper appeasement often resulting in prosperity due to the land “gaining the favor” of the entities in question (Roemer, 491-512). Oddly enough, this belief system has expanded as of late to include practices involving success in romantic love, passing exams or even finding a job.

Overall, I would have to say that I do not agree with the Shinto belief system in general. For me, it seems quite similar to the practice of the ancient Greeks wherein they would attribute natural phenomena or disasters to the actions of their Gods and Goddesses.

From a modern day perspective, Shinto is an outdated practice that, while interesting from a cultural perspective, has endured for far too long as a belief system since there is no evidence to prove that it works or has a valid function. However, I do commend this particular belief system due to its practice of not requiring its members to profess actual belief in the rituals they go through so long as they perform them.

This is far different from the other belief systems that I am used to wherein strict adherence towards professing one’s faith was an absolute necessity.

Based on what I have read, Shinto seems less like a set of religious beliefs and more like a set of traditions that have been incorporated into Japanese society as a while without the burden of strict adherence. It is more like a “religion of convenience” in that believing in the practices it espouses is often a result of needing something at that particular instance instead of believing in the practice as a whole.

Jensen, Casper Bruun, and Anders Blok. “Techno-Animism In Japan: Shinto Cosmograms, Actor-Network Theory, And The Enabling Powers Of Non- Human Agencies.” Theory, Culture & Society 30.2 (2013): 84-115. Print

Roemer, Michael K. “Shinto Festival Involvement And Sense Of Self In Contemporary Japan.” Japan Forum 22.3/4 (2010): 491-512. Print

Shimazono, Susumu. “State Shinto And The Religious Structure Of Modern Japan.” Journal Of The American Academy Of Religion 73.4 (2005): 1077-1098. Print

Starrs, Roy. “Zen And The Art Of Statecraft.” New Statesman 140.5060 (2011): 34- 37. Print

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 31). Religious Studies: Shinto' Belief System. https://ivypanda.com/essays/religious-studies-shinto-belief-system/

"Religious Studies: Shinto' Belief System." IvyPanda , 31 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/religious-studies-shinto-belief-system/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Religious Studies: Shinto' Belief System'. 31 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Religious Studies: Shinto' Belief System." December 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/religious-studies-shinto-belief-system/.

1. IvyPanda . "Religious Studies: Shinto' Belief System." December 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/religious-studies-shinto-belief-system/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Religious Studies: Shinto' Belief System." December 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/religious-studies-shinto-belief-system/.

Summary: “Shinto: The Way Home” by Thomas Kasulis
Shinto Religious Community
Shinto and Its Relationship With China and Buddhism
Judaism' Religion: History and Concept
Hinduism Definition and Characteristics
Buddhism Characteristics and Attributes
Korean Shamanism vs Chinese Customary
Buddhism and Hinduism: Similarities and Differences

Belief System Introduction

Belief System Introduction Each country has its own culture as each person has his/her own religion. Belief system of a person or a society is the set of beliefs that they have about what things are right, wrong and what things are true, false. The personal beliefs of us play a small part in each religion, which it points out the special of it that no others can have. Religion is certainly a type of belief system, but not all belief systems are religion. Each individual person has different types of belief system, hence, the ways their behaviors are and the ways they act are different.

But when that individual person Join in a specific religion, he/she needs to follow all typical laws or rules that that religion has made and created. For society: a group of people that has the same belief system will have the same acts together, forming a basic standard for that society. Due to different religion, that group of people will have different ways of solving problems. For example: when there is a disadvantage as a difficult circumstance, the Buddhists will organize a donated campaign where people can help each other to bring up the society, making it more and more better.

Last but not east, things usually go the way it decided to go and so sometimes we become conscious with everything around us. Along the Journey of life, we will be able to find out what and where we want to become. Hence, belief system is an actual set of precepts, which our daily gives us words, actions and thoughts in life. Belief system can refer to [1] A religion- the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe. A philosophy - a personal outlook our viewpoint.

Order custom essay Belief System Introduction with free plagiarism report

An ideology - a set of idea that constitutes one's goal, expectation and actions. It is a ay of looking at things and theorizes of a visionary or impractical nature. [1] Global/ International Perspective Depend on each region, each area, each ethnic and each family; an individual person choose for his/her own religion, as it should be suitable with their mind, and they like to be apart of the religion. They must be instructed in an appropriate way and a right way and they have the rights to choose whether they want to be in the religion or not.

There is no force in this. It should also depend on How they act What they do How they treat things (interact with others) MAJOR RELIGION IN THE WORLD 1. Buddhism [3] [4] [5] Buddhism focuses on the development of a personal spirit. The number of Buddhists in the world at between 230 million and 500 million is making it the world's fourth-largest religion. Buddhists believe that life should not be destroyed Buddhists take responsibilities for what they do and the results they receive.

Buddhists try not to harm living things, try to have a kind-hearted and always control feeling and think clearly before doing a thing Buddhists are required to have equal respect to all living things. Buddhists go to pagoda, temple to pray for good. All temples represent for 5 elements, which is: Fire, Water, Wisdom, Earth, Air and hey have a statue of Buddha. 2. Hinduism About 900 million persons or 14 percent of the world's population follow Hinduism. It is world's 3rd largest religion in the world Major religion in India (80%) and Nepal Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world.

Hindus believe in a Supreme God. Hindus believe that life is a cycle of birth. We born, we death and reborn. Hindus believe that successful life depends on how the previous life was lived. Hindus believe that killing a baby that hasn't born yet is worse than killing parents. But also because boy is more prefer women may choose to abort the baby to prevent new baby girl would be born. Most Hindus are vegetarians and they don't eat beef. 3. Islam With 1. 57 billion Muslims, Islam is the second-largest religion in the world.

People who follow Islam are called Muslim Muslims believe that God sent prophets Jesus, Moses and Abraham) down to teach them the way of living. Muslims believe that their final prophet was Muhammad. Muslims believe in angels. Muslims believe they have only one God is Allah and Allah was the one who created all living things. Muslims who are women are allowed to get abortion because Muslims believe the women are responsible for it and they are originators who give earth for the baby. Muslims believe animals exist for a benefit of human beings and they are not allowed to harm or treat them bad. . Christianity [1 2. 1 billion Followers bring Christianity to be the world's biggest religion. People who follow Christianity are called Christian. Christianity focuses on the teaching of Jesus Christ who believed are the Son of God. Christians believe God had created animal for human to use so Christians are allowed to treat animals whatever the way they want to. In the old time Now, Christians believe they have to treat animals kindly due to they are weaker than us, ND God created animals to live a harmony live with human.

They deserve to be respected somehow and treated generous. They read, learn and follow things from the Bible. Valentine is the most popular which everyone not only Christian know about this day 14 February which came from Saint Valentine. The cross symbol of the Christian is one of the most powerful symbols in the world which you can see it everywhere in your daily life. You even wear them on your body. Christians usually go to church on weekend to show their love and obedience to God, to build up their spirit strength ND to provide fellowship with other Christians. 1 *Almost every religion has some sort of principle that says we should treat our fellow man kindly. Furthermore, many religions go a step further and give specific instructions on how we should care for the poor and downtrodden in society. Atheism The road to atheism tends to be very personal and individual, based upon the specific circumstances of a person's life, experiences, and attitudes. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe some general similarities, which tend to be common among quite a few atheists, particularly atheists in the West.

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings that seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings. Globalization affect to belief system Globalization refers to connect worldwide together, creates relationship between people and makes them become more familiar with each other.

People from different region and areas can easy know about each other and how they are doing in other part of the world. Globalization also is the expansion of global linkages, the organization of social life on a global scale, and the growth of a global consciousness, hence to the consolidation of world society. Globalization affects culture because when people of different cultures and from different places come together and shares what they have; they get to know each other. They bring back what they have learned and it enters into society and culture.

If we focus on the cultural consequences of "globalization", we see positive and negative effects. Through globalization, people are not indiscriminate like in the past. Nowadays, through traveling, Internet, high technology, free flow of information, people have more logical and scientific reason to be sure in their belief. It is somehow can not explain all the original of a problem but it helps people to know whether that thing is right or wrong to believe in. Beside the positive aspects of globalization is its negative aspect: CONFLICT between nations.

Conflict doesn't mean that there has to be a fight between nations, it could be arise from two different belief systems. For example: The Arab-Israeli Conflict is act of hostility and political tensions have lasted about a century. It involves the establishment of the modern State of Israel, as well as the establishment and independence of many Arab countries during the same period, and relations between Arab countries and Israel The conflict between Islam and the West: The continuous violence of Muslims around the world to publish the cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.

All of this violence, whether or not excited by the extremist Islamic group, showed a strong rise of the Islamic spirit, and challenge the dominance of Western civilization. Muslim conflict - the West has and continues to emerge as the main trends of world politics in the 21st century. Solutions: _Promote Dialogue Youth Hanoi could strengthen traveling to visit an Islamic country or China to exchange through seminars and conferences. Cultural Exchange: tourists visit to Western Country _Mutual Learning _Exchange experiences _Organize training courses All of these actions enhance exchanges and mutual understanding and exchange of neutral understanding. Different belief system can bring different ways of doing things such as many people in the world nowadays think that same-sex marriage is Just a normal things. But for some people and parents, they think it's not acceptable and they do not allow it to append to their children or their relatives.

This is one of the problems that are happening in the world also. Local/National Perspective Vietnamese belief system Vietnam is a country with many forms of belief and religion. Vietnam is very convenient with connecting culture, religions with other countries in the world because of its position located. 5] At present, in Vietnam, there are about 75 % of the population have their own belief system, of which millions in 76 millions total followers of 6 religions, but most of the population are non-religious. Buddhism: 10 millions followers Christian: > 5. Millions followers Protestantism: 60. 000 followers Muslim: 1 million followers Ho Hay Buddhism: 1. 3 millions followers Cacao Dad: 2. 4 millions followers. Vietnamese belief system can refer to many factors Culture Position located Family perspective & Personal perspective Rules/Laws In Vietnam, we celebrate both New Year Events and Lunar New Year that maybe only China has the same traditional. During Et Holiday, the young children will receive lucky money that will bring them luck for the whole year that include good health, well-doing in education etc.

We also have spirit money and lucky items that we always bring it beside us. We consider it as something will protect and bring luck to us. In Vietnam, people usually work in a group, they listen to other opinions to consider whether it's right or wrong, they sometimes need proof for their belief. Hence, from there, they believe and follow what they informed about. We can hardly distinguish the Vietnamese Culture because it is the mixture of many belief system, values due to the influences of neighboring countries.

Even Vietnam is not a rich country but the Vietnamese people are very easily integrated. We seem to have one common belief system is that in every situation, whether we are at home, school or many, respect is always the very important to show how we behave. We have our own freedom to believe in what we think is right beside rules and laws that have applied to follow. Parents in Vietnam believe the age when they can be sure that their children are fully grow-up is 22 right after they finish university, however, their children are consider adults once they reach the age of 18.

The mother in Vietnam also really hard to allow their daughter to go out lately at night and commonly, they usually don't accept for them to sleep over their friend's house when they are monger than 18, the mother believe that it's not appropriate and it should not happen if you are a girl. Even though we have many different belief systems in our country, maybe in a small community also, but we don't have and show any bad attitudes to others. We respect it, and we know that each person can have his/her own religions, they might think the way we never do, but they don't as we either.

More important, what they do don't usually effect our lives. Family/Personal Perspective I am not really Buddhist but I read book and I follow some of the rules that Buddha teaches. I feel that all of those things are right and I believe that it is good for me to learn it. What I believe is not really same as my family, but somehow, because I am not fully-grown up yet so I can't really make my own choice. But in my opinion, the life now is very different from the life of few decades ago, so the way my parents think cannot be same as young people now.

I have some of my friends who are Christian. We have a lot of not common things such as I go to temple but they go to church. They believe in Jesus Christ but we believe in Buddha. And there are many of the things they do different from me. I think it is important to study to understand the relationship of belief system to social behavior in order to avoid significant errors in social interaction. Each person has his/her own religion so we have to respect it. It feels weird when something that you never do before but surely there's once when they feel the same way to you.

Cite this Page

Belief System Introduction. (2017, Dec 04). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/belief-system-introduction/

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

More related essays

“I believe in God, the Father Almighty…” starts the famous Catholic prayer, the Apostle’s Creed. And this is how I will also start this paper. I am not a very.

There is this one belief that I feel strongly about and that is religion. I believe that it is important to have a religion. A religion where you can rely.

In aiming to discuss the possibility of the existence of miracles, it is important to define to some extent the meaning of what a miracle is. Some people view miracles.

Pain is a complex concept. No single perspective can fully encapsulate or explain how pain is generated, perceived and healed or taken away. Though one would usually think of a.

There are many ways in which belief systems affect the personality of individuals, however, the most overarching and poignant way is the ability or lack of ability of a person.

In noting one’s particular belief or belief system, it is important to establish that this system of beliefs must not necessarily collide with or fit into one of society’s major.

In Deborah Lipstadts’ book Denying the Holocaust, author reveals the rising doubt about the different revelation during the war (specifically Second World War ). The author commences a deterring commission.

Family I believe your friends can sometimes be more of a family then your actual family. It's all because they choose to stand by your side. Your family is.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Save time and let our verified experts help you.

Main Navigation

Contact NeurIPS
Code of Ethics
Code of Conduct
Create Profile
Journal To Conference Track
Diversity & Inclusion
Proceedings
Future Meetings
Exhibitor Information
Privacy Policy

NeurIPS 2024, the Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, will be held at the Vancouver Convention Center

Monday Dec 9 through Sunday Dec 15. Monday is an industry expo.

Registration

Pricing » Registration 2024 Registration Cancellation Policy » . Certificate of Attendance

Our Hotel Reservation page is currently under construction and will be released shortly. NeurIPS has contracted Hotel guest rooms for the Conference at group pricing, requiring reservations only through this page. Please do not make room reservations through any other channel, as it only impedes us from putting on the best Conference for you. We thank you for your assistance in helping us protect the NeurIPS conference.

Announcements

The call for High School Projects has been released
The Call For Papers has been released
See the Visa Information page for changes to the visa process for 2024.

Latest NeurIPS Blog Entries [ All Entries ]

Important dates.

If you have questions about supporting the conference, please contact us .

View NeurIPS 2024 exhibitors » Become an 2024 Exhibitor Exhibitor Info »

Organizing Committee

General chair, program chair, workshop chair, workshop chair assistant, tutorial chair, competition chair, data and benchmark chair, diversity, inclusion and accessibility chair, affinity chair, ethics review chair, communication chair, social chair, journal chair, creative ai chair, workflow manager, logistics and it, mission statement.

The Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation is a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to foster the exchange of research advances in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, principally by hosting an annual interdisciplinary academic conference with the highest ethical standards for a diverse and inclusive community.

About the Conference

The conference was founded in 1987 and is now a multi-track interdisciplinary annual meeting that includes invited talks, demonstrations, symposia, and oral and poster presentations of refereed papers. Along with the conference is a professional exposition focusing on machine learning in practice, a series of tutorials, and topical workshops that provide a less formal setting for the exchange of ideas.

More about the Neural Information Processing Systems foundation »

IMAGES

Belief System Introduction
Week 2-Introduction to World Religion and Belief System
Core Values in Personal Belief System
Belief System Enduring Issues Essay by World Traveling Teacher
Belief System Definition, Types & Examples
Introduction to world religion and belief systems

VIDEO

Essay On Thailand With Easy Language In English
10 lines on Solar System essay in English
Quotations for Essay Education System of Pakistan || 12th Class Essay Quotations ||
The Education System in China
Essay on solar system #essaywriting #solarsystem #shorts
Belief Systems, World View, Religion, And Spirituality

COMMENTS

Belief Systems: Definition, Characteristics & Examples
A belief system is a structured set of principles or tenets held to be true by an individual or larger group. ... M. J. (2018). Belief systems and the perception of reality: An introduction. Belief systems and the perception of reality, 1-10. Scanes, C. G., & Chengzhong, P. (2018). Animals and Religion, Belief Systems, Symbolism and Myth ...
Essay on World Religions And Belief Systems for Students
Belief systems of world religions are the sets of beliefs and practices that are followed by the members of that religion. These beliefs and practices can be about things like God or gods, the afterlife, and the meaning of life. They can also include things like rituals, ceremonies, and festivals.
Belief Systems: what they are and how they affect you
A brief introduction to systems thinking "A system isn't just any old collection of things. A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves ...
READ: Overview of Belief Systems (article)
In this way, belief systems provided comfort for people in a frightening, uncertain world. Animism served our ancestors well. It offered people meaningful connections to the world they inhabited and united communities through common rituals and beliefs. It remains a common system of belief among many people today.
What are Belief Systems?
Belief systems have the following properties, and through them social significance. Some characteristics of belief systems are: (1) Personal commitment is one of most observable and interesting features of an ideology. If it were not for the fact of personal commitment, belief systems could not have strong social consequences, and the study of social systems would not be so interesting.
Wikipedia:Contents/Religion and belief systems
The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to faith as well as to the larger shared systems of belief. A belief system can refer to a religion or a world view. A world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung ( [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ⓘ) Welt is the German word for 'world,' and ...
The Concept of Religion
1. A History of the Concept. The concept religion did not originally refer to a social genus or cultural type. It was adapted from the Latin term religio, a term roughly equivalent to "scrupulousness".Religio also approximates "conscientiousness", "devotedness", or "felt obligation", since religio was an effect of taboos, promises, curses, or transgressions, even when these ...
Buddhism
Buddhism, religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha (Sanskrit: "Awakened One"), a teacher who lived in northern India between the mid-6th and mid-4th centuries bce (before the Common Era). Spreading from India to Central and Southeast Asia, China, Korea, and Japan, Buddhism has played a central role in the spiritual, cultural, and social life of Asia, and ...
Origin, Nature, and Structure of Beliefs System
Introduction. Religion is found in practically all known human societies in the world. It is also one of the most important institutional structures that make up the total human social system. ... These are fundamentally based on the customs, belief systems, concept of God, relationship with the divinities, spirits, ancestors, and the view of ...
(PDF) Understanding Beliefs: An Essay on the Methodology of the
The essay sketches a comprehensive methodology for the study of beliefs and belief systems. It considers the situation of the anthropologist studying the beliefs of natives of whose language and ...
Personal Belief Essay Examples and Topics to Write about
My Core Beliefs: Guiding Principles. 1 page / 522 words. As an individual, my core beliefs are shaped by a combination of personal experiences, cultural influences, and moral values. These beliefs serve as the guiding principles in my life, influencing my decisions, actions, and interactions with others. In this essay, I will explore the key...
Religion
religion, human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in ...
PDF Explaining the Epistemological Belief System: Introducing the Embedded
Requests for reprints should be sent to Marlene Schommer-Aikins, Col-lege of Education, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260-0123. E-mail: [email protected]. ence. Perry ...
13.1 What Is Religion?
The other signpost used within anthropology to make sense of religion was crafted by American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) in his work The Interpretation of Cultures (1973). Geertz's definition takes a very different approach: "A religion is: (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3 ...
World Religions Overview Essay
A Canadian Forum on Religion and Ecology was established in 2002, a European Forum for the Study of Religion and the Environment was formed in 2005, and a Forum on Religion and Ecology @ Monash in Australia in 2011. Courses on this topic are now offered in numerous colleges and universities across North America and in other parts of the world.
Essay on Religions of the World
The Religions of the World Religion is big part of human life. Every area of the world has some kind of religion or belief system. Religion is defined as "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" ("Religion" Def.2). With such a large amount of religions today, religion is widely ...
223 Belief Essay Ideas, Topics, & Examples
In your belief essay, you might want to focus of various philosophical approaches to the concept. Another idea is to compare religious and secular belief systems. One more option is to talk about your strongest personal beliefs and practices. Whether you have to write a high-school or a college assignment, our article will be helpful.
Revealing the Cognitive Neuroscience of Belief
A related challenge for research has been the inherent complexity of belief. Beliefs exist within broader networks of related beliefs (Quine and Ullian, 1970), making discrete beliefs difficult to study in isolation. Beliefs also interact with many lower-level cognitive processes, such as attention, perception, and memory.
Exam
The document provides instructions and content for a test on world religions and belief systems. The test contains multiple choice, matching, fill-in-the-blank, identification and enumeration questions. It covers topics like the main religions of the world, their founders, holy books, places of worship, beliefs and practices. The document instructs students to follow directions for each ...
Change in Belief System
809 writers online. Learn More. Change in one's belief system affects every aspect of life because the process of developing new viewpoints and turning them into convictions is critical. The conviction that destiny is determined by external factors is a common belief that many people hold. In my childhood, I believed that external forces such ...
Religious Studies: Shinto' Belief System
Introduction. Shinto, which is a belief system that believes in the presence of spirits, deities or essences which embody nature and various aspects related to everyday living (i.e., fortune, victory, etc.), started in 660 BC. This belief system is unique in that practitioners need not express actual faith in the practice.
Belief System Introduction
Hence, belief system is an actual set of precepts, which our daily gives us words, actions and thoughts in life. Belief system can refer to [1] A religion- the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe. A philosophy - a personal outlook our viewpoint.
2024 Conference
The Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation is a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to foster the exchange of research advances in Artificial Intelligence and ... and oral and poster presentations of refereed papers. Along with the conference is a professional exposition focusing on machine learning in practice, a series of ...

Belief Systems: Definition, Characteristics & Examples

The Origins of Belief Systems

Types and Examples of Belief Systems

2. Philosophical Systems

3. Political Ideologies

4. Economic Systems

5. Scientific Paradigms

Influence of Belief Systems on Human Behavior

Positive and Negative Effects of Belief Systems

Summary of Key Points

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Essay on World Religions And Belief Systems

100 Words Essay on World Religions And Belief Systems

Belief Systems

Diversity of Religions

250 Words Essay on World Religions And Belief Systems

Christianity:

500 Words Essay on World Religions And Belief Systems

Belief Systems of World Religions

Similarities among World Religions

Differences among World Religions

Importance of Understanding World Religions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

World History Project - Origins to the Present

First read: preview and skimming for gist

Third read: evaluating and corroborating

Overview of Belief Systems

Want to join the conversation?

Bibliography

The Concept of Religion

1. A History of the Concept

2. Two Kinds of Analysis of the Concept

Support SEP

Origin, Nature, and Structure of Beliefs System

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Essays About Personal Beliefs

The Sociological Study of Religion

The Three Most Important Mottos that I Live My Life by

Complacency - The Cancer of Our Society

13.1 What Is Religion?

Defining Religion, Spirituality, and Worldview

Witchcraft, Sorcery, and Magic

Supernatural Forces and Beings

Religious Specialists

The Institutionalization of Religion

Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology

World Religions Overview Essay

The Movement of Religion and Ecology: Emerging Field and Dynamic Force

Challenges: The Dream of Progress and the Religion of Consumption

Challenges: Religions Fostering Anthropocentrism

Possibilities: Systems Science

Collaboration of Science and Religion

Possibilities: Extinction and Religious Response

Problems and Promise of Religions

Retrieval, Reevaluation, Reconstruction

Religious Ecologies and Religious Cosmologies

Multidisciplinary approaches: Environmental Humanities

The Emerging Field of Religion and Ecology

The Dynamic Force of Religious Environmentalism

Renewal Through Laudato Si’

Essay on Religions of the World

Frederick Douglass Religion

Christian Foundations By: Kathleen Fischer & Thomas Hart

World Religions Dbq Essay

Christianity, Christianity And Christianity

Compare And Contrast Ancient Rome And Christianity

Jesus Is It Our Faith? Essay

The Three Major Religions Essay

How Has Religion Changed Over Time Essay

Buddhism Vs Christianity Essay example

The History and Source of Christianity Essay