Wow…I didn’t think I would be this confused for today’s topic! I usually have so much to say about religion but couldn’t come up with a definition as to what it is. When I was reading, I felt an overwhelming need to just put down everything and wish there were a simpler way of understanding and grasping the ideas that were being thrown at me. Green tea couldn’t solve my headache this time! But in all seriousness, as I went on I realized that there really could not be an uncomplicated way of establishing a universal explanation. There are many approaches to uncovering what religion is, showing that it’s all very complex and there can’t be a single meaning. So how could it even be possible for me to come up with a definition if it had a high chance of excluding someone’s view on the substance of religion?
After long deliberation, I finally summed it up to this: Religion involves beliefs and devotion towards a deity or deities, which participate in the ongoing life of humans and the universe through divine means. This still doesn’t satisfy me entirely since I know it’s not concrete in that it rejects various opinions but for now, it’ll have to satisfy as I continue to learn about it more. Now in the readings, I came across MANY explanations for the very existence of religion and no doubt, it had me jumping from one team to another. Scholars themselves find it hard to form one answer because there are many disagreements, yet they do agree that “beings” and views of “forces” should be included. Something that I was intrigued and also coincide with is that religion has a powerful influence on behaviour. Freud stated that religion inhibited violence and “anti-social urges”. If you read numerous religious texts, there is almost always a decree on how to treat fellow humans and even more importantly, family. Confucianism and Christianity are one of the religious sects that highlight the significance of how and why parents –especially fathers- are to be treated with honour. Aside from laws, religion creates a huge impact on human conduct but it isn’t always a positive one. Religion is also a unique identity, which can divide people due to the constant comparisons and need to be distinct or the “right” path towards God. This, is one of its downfalls and probably not even its intention (I believe it’s humans who create this separation, not religion) since we see over and over, the attention put on equality.
(Charter for Compassion)
Last year, I learned a lot and in specifics about missionary journeys in my RLG100 class. As expressed in the readings, there was a movement for “society’s evolutionary progress” in the 19th century, which consequently led to labels of “savages” for those that belonged in a less “civil” tradition. These indigenous religions were considered to be “primitive” and “unintelligible” by missionary terms. Tribes were forced to convert to Christianity and many of them would secretly call their deities by the names of Christian saints so as to avoid punishment. I didn’t enjoy reading these accounts as it brought out horrible imagery. I can’t even begin to assume what it must have been like for these people to be illustrated as “uncivil” beings that needed to be corrected for the very thing they were doing as these missionary groups…believing and practicing their tradition.
Missionary acts are still taking place to this day but not entirely with such forceful degrees as it did before. This aspect of religion made me question whether it should be included in the definition. Now spreading the message of God and gaining disciples isn’t a component of every tradition but it does exist. So do we include these aspects into the description? From here, I further began to realize that because there isn’t one answer, religion is subjective and it holds different meanings for everyone.
The academia has definitely changed from the past and isn’t as ethnocentric or discriminatory as the scholars of 19th century. However, I don’t entirely agree with the academic views on different traditions. Scholars can define and study something but it might not hold the “true” meaning for the individuals or topic that is being studied. What I mean by this is that it’s hard for me to trust someone’s statement if they haven’t experienced the religion. This brings me back to the discussion we had during a lecture in RLG100 course about the kachera in Sikhi. Kachera is one of the five articles of faith for Khalsa disciples. The professor had stated that from an academic view, the kachera was probably created so that if the Khalsa warriors were called to war, they could just “get up and go” in a hurry without getting dressed.
(Five articles of faith for Khalsa adherents)
Now, I’m a part of the Khalsa so this seemed odd to me. Is it probable? Sure but then again, it was clearly stated by Guru Gobind Singh that the kachera was a reminder for the devotee to abstain from sex until marriage and even after marriage, to be faithful to their partner. You are then left with the academic and religious viewpoint but for someone who is not familiar with a certain sect, they’d probably be confused as to which side is pointing towards the truth. This became apparent to many students as well because while they were learning about world religions, they also knew that it was a scholarly perspective. Academics have the advantage because they have an outside view but then again, can they truly know and understand like the members do? Do I think it’s important to have an academic view? Of course! Because without it, there would be a bias observation but even with scholars, it could still exist. So who defines religion, the academic or religious world?
Another aspect of religion is that it restricts people from living their life and this is what individuals, like Karl Marx, believed. This reminded me of when I was little and got asked (and still to this day) why I couldn’t cut my hair or eat meat. No matter how many times I would explain it to people, they just could not apprehend it. “That sucks!” or “But that’s not how life should be!” were some of the replies. I can see why some, like Marx, would think religion is a constrictive world because after all, it gives you guidelines on many spheres of life. However, what about those who lived the life of a certain religion before even stumbling upon it? For example, my friend’s uncle was born into a Jewish family but never really related to Judaism. He never wanted to cut his hair but didn’t know why he had just sentiments. He exclaims that he always lived a “Sikhi life” but just didn’t know it until he was introduced to the tradition. So if an individual is living in a certain way that would be thought as Buddhist or Christian before any knowledge or feelings of belonging to the certain sect, are they restricted in life? What if the mandates for life from a specific tradition are how someone wants to live, are they confining themselves?
(For anyone interested or wondering why Sikhs do not cut their hair)
One of the methods used to get a better sense of religion is the functionalist approach. This method looks at what something does and not what it is. Personally, I like this approach a lot better since I’d rather learn about what certain rituals, celebrations, sacred items, etc. are for so functionalism was more appealing to me throughout the readings. Yet I do realize that studying something’s purpose isn’t sufficient enough for we do need to look at what it is. On the other hand, essentialism takes one feature or a list of them in order to classify where members fit into categories. The problem with this is that it’s impossible to use one classification because some sects within a religion believe in things like mysticism whereas the other sect(s) might condemn it. Moreover, someone could categorize in a way that helps only them to understand something.
Additionally, the inductive method tries to locate similarities in “empirical examples”, such as the “Human Nature” and this is beneficial for it breaks down barriers between traditions and helps unite them. However, can we just take a few observations and hope that it is universal for all traditions? Then there is the “family resemblance” tactic created by Wittgenstein, which states that membership is not a simple yes or no but it varies in degrees of “more or less”. So then what makes someone a part of a religious sect? Can you simply take a few things from the tradition but ignore the rest and still call yourself a Christian, Sikh, Muslim, etc? Can someone call themselves a scientist because they know how to do a few homemade experiments? Should the individual be entirely committed to a religion (through a process like baptism) or can they just pick a few things they agree with and state they are a member? It’s hard for me to answer all of these things since it’s tricky and also because it would be unfair to make the affiliation to religion selective…yet I do feel that membership is not dependant on just a limited amount of traits.
Something that I found interesting in one of the assigned readings was the explanation of someone being religious vs. spiritual, where the second is more of an “inner quest”. But to me, religion also encompasses this. For example, there are a few sects in Buddhism that require the followers to look within and answer various questions in order to achieve enlightenment.
I realize that I posed many questions throughout this blog. It’s because I, myself, cannot come up with a tangible answer since there is so much to consider when it comes to anything related to religion. Hopefully I did not confuse any of you but this seems a bit unavoidable as again, I was left perplexed myself. Scholars are also stuck in this situation, leaving many questions in the air as to what constitutes in defining religion. I began with my own definition in the beginning but now I believe that it is up to the individual as the meaning of religion is personal. We choose what fits best for what we’re trying to uncover for “our purposes and our curiosities”. However, if I were to select which definition I found to best fit my understanding, it would be this (from the Religion and Classification essay):
“…"religion" is understood as a tool some people happen to use in making sense of the worlds in which they find themselves; its definition is therefore intimately linked to their interests--whether their interests are intellectual and theoretical or whether they are practical and political.”
I have come to appreciate this topic and also realize that it is both a delicate and intricate area that cannot be understood through just one definition. What ever one decides the meaning is, I hope that through the process comes a realization that no matter what the differences are between religions, there are still many unifiers, namely love for all. Our paths might be different but we are all still the same in the end.
P.S.
For anyone interested, here's a trailer for an upcoming film that explores the essence of God:
No comments:
Post a Comment