RELIGION FROM A

NON-THEOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE

Cioclteu Anda
Intercultural Management, First Year
I.

Introduction

The idea of religion has been a constant debate for the common man as well
as scholars in vast areas of study: arts, psychology, anthropology, sociology,
philosophy and so many more.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines religion as the service and
worship of God or the supernatural or as a commitment or devotion to religious
faith or observance. But as we are about to see, such simplistic definitions
cannot suffice to such diverse point of views. Without exception, religions around
the world have always played an important role in all the life surrounding us.
Throughout time there have been numerous important figures that have managed
to embrace the spirituality discovered in the practice of different religions. Some
wanted to pursue a higher meaning or a universal truth while others simply
wanted the comfort of knowing that there is something beyond this humble
human life. From my own limited experience, I do not see religion as being
interrelated with some sort of Godly figure or supernatural being. Personally, I
think any experience that you might have and consider sacred or infinite and
in which you believe strongly, counts as religious, especially in todays society. It is

no longer about a universal approach, it is about the individuals inner experience

and what makes him attain a better understanding of his place in this world.
Both academic and non-academic literature have a lot of different
approaches regarding religion. Unfortunately, definitions of religion are either too
one-sided and exclude many characteristics that many people would consider
relevant, or they are too vague and elusive so that you cannot form a single
specific definition. While there is a big amount of data of human experiences that
could be enough for some to say that God or a higher deity actually exists, some
tend to argue and disagree with that idea.
Of course, religion must not be confounded with faith or spirituality,
although in many cultures these notions are interdependent. Also, some say that
religion is not defined by some specific features so much that it is about attitude
and the way the world is perceived. This might be the most accurate thing about
religion in itself: faith and attitude. When we come to think about all the beautiful
and, on the other part, atrocious acts humanity has done in the name of religion,
faith and the attitude towards it could be the answer that pinpoints the motives
behind these. Emile Durkheim states that even the most barbaric or bizarre
rituals represent a human need, a certain aspect of individual and social life and
its sciences duty to discover them.

II.

Defining religion from various perspectives

Defining religion is problematic. Luckily, there are enough intellectuals that

have given us perspective so it can help us narrow it down a little.
I would like to begin with an anthropological point of view, starting with
Clifford Geertzs own definition that states that religion is a (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.
First of all, I think we must ask ourselves what constitutes a symbol.
After all, the M on the McDonalds restaurants is a symbol known worldwide, as
well as the silhouette of Marilyn Monroe or the DNAs double helix.. They all have
meaning and they all suggest something about our world and th way we see it.
But just communicating something about the way we live is not enough to form a
religion. They must create strong beliefs and moods that will last a long time, inert
to other important aspects of life. At the same time, they also tell us that
everything we perceive is constructed in a particular and meaningful way and not
in the chaotic manner that some of us are well acquainted with. Even though
religion may not hold all the answers, it makes life more endurable and
comforting in times of need. It reassures us that everything we do in this mortal
life will not conclude in suffering, but will actually give you a meaning. No matter
how hard life can get, you must believe in the lifestyle that you chose. Last, but
not the least, Geertz asserts that those specific moods and beliefs must be
realistic. Because of this, every society or religion acquires all sorts of rituals so
they can give you stability (christening, marriage and so on). They convince you

that our way of life is indeed good and fulfilling and that without them it would be
completely meaningless.
Geertzs definition conveys some quite basic facts about religion in general
but without being too specific. Emile Durkheim, though a founding figure in
sociology, comes in addition with his own thoughts about what religion means to
him. He stipulates that people have already made up their own idea about what
religion is even before there was any methodology. Our existence and its
necessities compel all of us, religious or not, to represent ourselves and the things
surrounding us in a specific matter that forms our behavior. Unfortunately, he
thinks that because all our ideas regarding religion were formed before we could
configure a method, we cannot trust religion and for that we cannot be biased and
must be rational and objective.
After a serious debate of what is sacred and profane, the supernatural
factor of it all, or if we should consider magic or rituals as being important
factors, he concludes by saying that 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. He was not concerned with the individual
experiences, but rather a communal binding that, in the end, brings different
kinds of people together. He believed that religion was a product of society and
not the work of something supernatural or divine, and that it provided a meaning
for our lives and gave us a strong, empowering figure. Also, he claimed that
without the collective engagement people would slowly lose faith in their own
beliefs, hence the need for religion to constantly remind us that we must act in a

collective manner.
Bronislaw Malinowski also claims that religion promotes solidarity, helping
religious people to cope with stress and minimizing the disruptions of the day-today life but, at the same time, he states that death is the staple of religion and
that without it there would be no point in the existence of religion.
We might say that these were factual and to the point definitions seen from
an anthropological and sociological point of view. As for Mircea Eliade and Rudolf
Otto it is more about the experiential approach and, by all means, religion should
be about experience. Otto stated that these experiences do not come from a
rational part of the human mind and that the answers that we all seek about life
or death cannot be answered by a scientific input. Furthermore, he saw religion
as something that can work on its own and cannot be reduced to a social,
psychological or economical view. As far as Eliade is concerned, he believed that
religion was the creation of human spirit and it was a necessary element in
society. Not only did he want to systematize the religions of the world, but also to
find the common elements of them all, which is the consciousness of the sacred.
He chose to study religion from the practitioners point of view and managed to
make a distinction between sacred and profane. The sacred entails some sort of
response from the individual that will be externalized as values or a perceived
reality, while the profane interacts with the objects and the space surrounding us.
In addition to the discussion of what is sacred or profane, he points out the
importance of rituals and myths in the religious life: for religious men,
reactualization of the same mythical events constitutes his greatest hope; for with
each reactualization he again has the opportunity to transfigure his existence, to

make it like its divine model.but repetition emptied of its religious content
necessarily leads to a pessimistic vision of existence. As we can see, for the
people in the archaic societies this repetition has a lot of meaning as he believes
that they can be saved from nothingness and death. On the other hand, this
perspective takes a different turn when he argued that intellectual elites detach
themselves from the patterns of the traditional religion. We should point that
Eliade was not really detached in this assertion, maintaining a preference for the
archaic religions.
After we managed to establish from various points of view what religion
means and implies, I think we should reassess the word itself. Wilfred Cantwell
Smith compels us to abandon the notion of religion altogether in exchange for
faith and cumulative tradition, which he thinks are more adequate and
accurate, or as he defines it a inner religious experience or involvement of a
particular person. He suggest that by using these terms we will be able to
conceptualize and describe anything that has ever happened in the history of
mankind regarding religion. He observed that people are more susceptive towards
faith than, in fact, religion. Unfortunately, religion becomes in some individuals
minds a narrow and redundant term that entails very strict rules and norms that
may corner someones spirituality. He proposes that by using these terms we do
not coerce people to abide by the appointed tradition that lies in religion, but
instead they can respond in their own personal way and undergo some unique set
of feelings to what is otherwise this transcendence experience.
At the same time, some will claim that there is no such thing as a religion.
Jonathan Zittel Smith defends this idea by saying that while there is a staggering
amount of data, phenomena, of human experiences and expressions that might

be characterized in one culture or another, by one criterion or another, as religion

there is no data for religion. Religion is solely the creation of the scholars
study. It is created for the scholars analytic purposes by his imaginative acts of
comparison and generalization. Religion has no existence apart from the
academy. This is quite a bold affirmation and it does not leave much room for
interpretation. He argues that many cultures do not draw a clear line between
what culture or religion should entail. If there is plenty of data for culture, religion
may not benefit of the same treatment. He states that religion is an assortment of
cultural features created by scholars that intended to study and compare it. It is a
very difficult task for us to make an actual distinction between what culture and
religion bring about separately because they may in fact be very tightly integrated
in one another so it is, indeed, very hard to discern which is which. The reality is
that we perceive these notions as two whole separate concepts just because we
grew to see them this way and not because we managed to apprehend a personal
approach that we may find legitimate.
On a slightly different note, we can mention Aldous Huxley who points out
in his Perennial Philosophy that the religions whose theology has been least
preoccupied with events in time and most concerned with eternity, have been
consistently the least violent and the most humane in political practice. Unlike
early Judaism, Christianity and Mohamedanism (all of them obsessed with time),
Hinduism and Buddhism have never persecuted faiths, have preached almost no
holy wars and have refrained from the proselytizing religious imperialism, which
has gone hand in hand with the political and economic oppression of the coloured
peoples. This is a very interesting observation, seeing as religion in general is
bound to have a tight relationship with time and its ephemerality in special. It

may be a little far-fetched, but it almost seems that if we eliminate death from our
life cycles, the whole purpose of religion would become scarce. In fact, he
considered that, contrary to the previous opinions regarding the endless attempts
to find a meaning in this human life, the philosophy of meaninglessness was
essentially an instrument of liberation. This may be in fact extremely revealing,
and I personally agree with this assertion: that the moment we establish
ourselves as members of a supreme and meaningful community, we claim to be
more powerful than we actually are and we forget who we are deep inside as an
individual and so economic nationalism becomes more intense, rival
propagandas grow even fiercer and general wars become increasingly probable.
As we can see, he clearly states that some may find peace and comfort in
nothingness or in a meaningless life.
I feel that I should at least mention Friedrich Nietzsches take on this
matter, as he dismembered Christianity, in particular the idea of afterlife that he
believed made its believers less able to cope with the earthly life, having no goals
or aim. The statement that is mostly known is, of course, God is dead. God
remains dead. And we have killed him. Of course, Nietzsche thought that a holy
presence can only be in the minds of those who believed in it, therefore, only they
could have killed it. We rarely stop and think of the moral aspect of religion and
how something otherwise inspiring could become extremely hypocritical. Without
a spiritual figure, also known in this particular case as God, which people must
obey and listen to, individuals rarely have a purpose, direction or a sense of
morality. He is inclined to act in a good manner just because he knows that
otherwise he might be punished. Nietzsche also thought that religion, especially
Christianity, was established for weak people who despise themselves, so they will

find comfort in the idea that a God will accept them if they ultimately repent so
they will have a chance for an afterlife.
Hereinafter, I bring into discussion Alan Watts, famous for his
popularization of the Eastern philosophy in the West, who considered that religion
nowadays cannot handle the constant evolution of the society. At the same time,
he proposes that the standard religions managed to transform guilt into a virtue:
Religions are divisive and quarrelsome. They are a form of one-upmanship
because they depend upon separating the saved from the damned, the true
believers from the heretics, the in-group from the out-group. . . . All belief is
fervent hope, and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty. He refuses to
consider a world where a God would make all its followers depend upon one book
for answers and meaning. Instead, he proposes that we get to know ourselves
independent of our religion or beliefs by separating ourselves from the ego for a
better understanding of who we are, not having to cling to some preconceived
ideas.
On the other side, we have Karl Marxs famous input that says that religion
is the opium of the masses. We must take into consideration that religion served
as an illusory form of happiness for the lower classes who weren t privileged with
enough material supplies.
From a psychological point of view we have Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung,
both having some interesting approaches over the subject. In The Future of an
Illusion Freud wrote: Religion is a system of wishful illusions together with a
disavowal of reality, such as we find nowhere else but in a state of blissful
hallucinatory confusion. Religion's eleventh commandment is "Thou shalt not
question. He refers to religion as an illusion and wishful thinking that provides

no proof, unlike science. Basically, he draws a comparison between the neurotic

behavior and the religious rituals, thinking that being religious could affect
someones mental state. He also notes that a dogmatic view can bring along a
weak intellect, and that most religious people may not adapt to civilization as well
as the intellectuals do. Of course, I feel I should mention that, as we know, Freud
was obsessed with sexuality and its importance, which he overestimated. We can
attribute this comparison to the restrictions that religion has enforced upon
sexuality.
While religion may narrow down the individual, he hoped that reason and
science would replace the faith in God, thus encouraging certainty to set in. Even
so, he understood mans need for religion, as it gives him a sense of something
infinite. Instead, he asserted that we can look for inspiration in other people,
through the influence of others that have a tight grip of reality and a superior
insight over the human life and its necessities. Personally, I can relate to this
proposition entirely, because having a God-like figure may blur the boundaries of
power that onemay think they have, making it seem limitless, whether it concerns
themselves or the people around them.
Carl Jung, on the other hand, wasnt so extreme in thinking. Unlike Freud,
he tended to treat religion in a more positive light. He saw religion to be a
collective mythology, not real in essence, but having a real effect on the human
personality. As a young man he had visions that he considered rich with
meaning, but he was otherwise disappointed with what religion had to offer in his
analysis. He understood that people are not so much interested in faith anymore,
but are more concerned with what knowledge has to offer. In addition, he
understood how religion can be a useful tool into a persons life, believing that
God was in each persons unconscious.

Last but not least, I would like to offer a present-day opinion regarding
religion, by none other than Richard Dawkins, a personal favourite, although very
controversial: There is no all seeing, all loving God who keeps us free from
harm...By disclaiming the idea of the next life, we take more excitement in this
one. The here and now is not something to be endured for eternal bliss or
damnation. The here and now is all we have and is an inspiration to make the
most of itLook around you. Nature demands our attention, begs us to explore,
to question. Religion can provide only facile, unsatisfying answers. Science, in
constantly seeking real explanations, reveals the true majesty of our world in all
its complexity. The reason why I agree with this particular opinion is because
religion teaches us to be complacent with not knowing or understanding what
happens in the world. Just the simple act of acknowledging your being in this
world and your role in it may have a significant impact for your spirituality.

III.

Conclusion

As we saw, defining religion is extremely problematic. It raises difficult

questions regarding morality, practice, ethics and most important, the impact it
has on peoples life. I tried to expose as many and dissimilar opinions and
definitions regarding religion, as I thought it is equally important to be able to
have an anthropological point of view as well as a psychological or sociological
one, so we can have a complete assessment about the notion of religion and
spirituality.

References

1. Dawkins, R. (n.d.). The God delusion.

2. Durkheim, E. (1965). The elementary forms of the religious life. New York:
Free Press.
3. Eliade, M. and Trask, W. (1959). The sacred and the profane. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World.
4. Freud, S., Robson-Scott, W. and Strachey, J. (1962). The future of an

illusion. London: Hogarth Press.

5. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
6. Huxley, A. (1945). The perennial philosophy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
7. Malinowski, B. and Redfield, R. (1954). Magic, science and religion. Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
8. Merriam-Webster Dictionary
9. Smith, J. (1982). Imagining religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Smith, W. (n.d.). The Meaning and End of Religion.
11. Watts, A. (1951). The wisdom of insecurity. New York: Pantheon.