Religion is a complex topic, so it’s no wonder that it’s a subject of intense debate. The question of how to define religion cuts across a variety of disciplines, including anthropology, history, sociology, philosophy, psychology, and religious studies.
One approach to defining religion is to focus on the social function that it serves. For example, Durkheim defined religion as a societal bond that creates solidarity among people. Other scholars have looked at the role that religion plays in a person’s life, such as Paul Tillich, who defined it as whatever dominant concern organizes a person’s values.
Some definitions attempt to capture the essence of religion by describing its metaphysical beliefs and axiological functions. However, critics point out that this can lead to an essentialist view of religion, which implies that the beliefs and axiological functions must be exactly the same for all religions.
Other critics reject the notion of a “thing” called religion altogether, arguing that it is just an invented concept created by the West to describe its own worldview. Still others argue that the definition of religion should be viewed as a set of social relations that are at the heart of colonialism and neo-colonialism, thus denying it its objectivity and legitimacy (see Possamai 2008 ).
Scholars have also criticized substantive definitions of religion by emphasizing that social actors can decide for themselves whether there is a sacred-profane distinction or an empirical-non-empirical divide in their own societies. This critique points to the need for a verstehen definition of religion that takes into account the full complexity of social reality, including such aspects as physical culture, habits, and everyday experience, in addition to the more recognizable forms of religious practice.
A third way to define religion is by combining functional and metaphysical elements. This approach can be seen in some of the work of sociologist Lester Ward, who combined elements of a functional definition with the metaphysical ideas of William James. This approach emphasizes the social dimension of religion, but it also requires attention to the underlying beliefs in invisible realities.
In recent years, some have tried to find a compromise between the two approaches by combining features of functional and metaphysical definitions. These scholars have argued that a definition of religion should include both a metaphysical component and a social dimension, while ruling out pure functions or purely substantive components. Some have even advocated adding a fourth C to the traditional three: community. This would recognize that religious people are a part of larger communities, and it is this social element that may help explain why they often support political causes and charities. Ultimately, there is no definitive answer to the question of how to define religion. The important thing is to understand the variety of religions in the world and how they are related to each other. This will help you be better equipped to interact with people of different religions in a positive way. Moreover, it’s a great way to learn about different cultures!