Meaning:
Explaining the origin of the term religion Madan and Mazumdar
says that the term religion is derived from two root words such as
‘Leg’ means to gather, count or observe and ‘Leg’ means ‘to bind’.
Accordingly religion is a belief in supernatural power or it refers to
the performance of practices which binds together or links human
beings with the unseen super power. Religion is related to the
mysteries of human existence.
Religion is a belief in God. In other words religion is the human
response to the apprehension of something of power, which is
supernatural and supersensory. It is the expression of the manner
and type of adjustment effected by the people with their conception
of the supernatural.
Belief and rituals are two main component parts of religion. Beliefs
are a charter for rituals. Rituals consist in the observance according
to a prescribed manner of certain actions designed to establish
liaison between the performing individual and the supernatural
power. Religion involves a set of symbols invoking feelings of
reverences or awe are linked to rituals practiced by a community of
believers.
Religion is a complex Phenomenon. It includes a complex of
emotion feelings and attitudes towards mysteries and perplexities of
life. But the meaning of religion in a strict sociological sense is much
wider than that of the meaning used in religious books and
scriptures. In a strict sociological sense religion is defined as “those
institutionalized systems of beliefs, symbols values and practices
that provide groups of men with solutions to their questions of
ultimate being. Thus religion comprises of systems of attitudes
beliefs, symbols which are based on the assumption that certain
kinds of social relations are scared or morally imperative and a
structure of activities governed or influenced by these systems.
Definitions:
(1) According to Maclver, “Religion as we understand the term
implies a relationship not merely between man and man but also
between man and some higher power.”
(2) According to Emile Durkheim, “Religion is a unified system of
beliefs and practices relating to sacred things, that is to say, things
set apart and forbidden.”
(3) According to Ogburn, “Religion is attitudes towards
superhuman powers.”
(4) According to J.M. Frazer, “Religion is a belief in powers superior
to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature
of human life.”
(5) According to A.W. Green, “Religion is a system of beliefs and
symbolic practices and objects, governed by faith rather than by
knowledge which relates man to an unseen supernatural realm
beyond the known and beyond the controllable.”
Components or Basic elements of Religion:
According to Anderson and Parker religion mainly consists of four
primary components such as:
(1) Belief in Supernatural Power:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Every religion believes in some supernatural power i.e. powers
outside of man and the present world. The supernatural powers are
believed to influence human life and conditions.
(2) Man’s adjustment to Supernatural Powers:
It is another component of religion. As man is dependent on these
supernatural powers hence he must adjust himself to the powers. As
a result every religion provides for some external acts or rituals such
as prayer; Kirtans Utterance of hymns etc. Non-performance of
these rituals regarded as sinful.
(3) Acts defined as Sinful:
It is another component of religion. Every religion defines some acts
as sacred and some other as sinful which suppose to destroy the
harmonious relationships between man and god.
(4) Method of Salvation:
It is another component of religion. Man needs some method by
which he can attain salvation or Nirvana or by which harmony
between man and god will be re-established by the removal of guilt
or bondage. Because every religion consider salvation as the
ultimate aim of life. But besides the above components religion may
have some other components which are as follows.
(5) Belief in some sacred things:
Every religion believes on some holy or sacred things which
constitute the centre of religion. These sacred or holy things are
symbolic. But this belief based on faith. For example, Cow is sacred
for Hindus.
(6) Procedure of Worship:
It is another component of religion. Every religion has its own
specific procedure of worshipping. The follower of religion worship
the supernatural power either in the form of a statute or in a
formless manner.
(7) Place of Worship:
Every religion has its own definite place of worship in which its
followers offer their prayer to the supernatural power.
For example Hindu Worship in a Temple.
Magic is a category into which have been placed various beliefs and practices considered
separate from both religion and science. Emerging within Western culture, the term has
historically often had pejorative connotations, with things labelled magical perceived as being
socially unacceptable, primitive, or foreign. The concept has been adopted by scholars in
the humanities and social sciences, who have proposed various different—and often mutually
exclusive—definitions of the term. Many contemporary scholars regard the concept to be so
problematic that they reject it altogether.
The term magic derives from the Old Persian magu, a word that applied to a form of religious
functionary about which little is known. During the late sixth and early fifth centuries BCE, this
term was adopted into Ancient Greek, where it was used with negative connotations to apply to
rites that were regarded as fraudulent, unconventional, and dangerous. This meaning of the term
was then adopted by Latin in the first century BCE. Via Latin, the concept was incorporated
into Christian theology during the first century CE, where magic was associated with demons and
thus defined against Christian religion. This concept was pervasive throughout the Middle Ages,
when Christian authors categorised a diverse range of practices—such as
enchantment, witchcraft, incantations, divination, necromancy, and astrology—under the
label magic. In early modern Europe, Protestants often claimed that Roman
Catholicism was magic rather than religion, and as Christian Europeans began colonising other
parts of the world in the sixteenth century they labelled the non-Christian beliefs they
encountered magical. In that same period, Italian humanists reinterpreted the term in a positive
sense to create the idea of natural magic. Both negative and positive understandings of the term
recurred in Western culture over the following centuries.
Since the nineteenth century, academics in various disciplines have employed the
term magic but have defined it in different ways and used it in reference to different things. One
approach, associated with the anthropologists Edward Tylor and James G. Frazer, uses the term
to describe beliefs in hidden sympathies between objects that allow one to influence the other.
Defined in this way, magic is portrayed as the opposite to science. An alternative approach,
associated with the sociologists Marcel Mauss and Émile Durkheim, employs the term to
describe private rites and ceremonies and contrasts it with religion, which it defines as a
communal and organised activity. By the 1990s, many scholars were rejecting the term's utility
for scholarship. They argued that it drew arbitrary lines between similar beliefs and practices that
were instead considered religious and that, being rooted in Western and Christian history, it
was ethnocentric to apply it to other cultures.
Throughout Western history, there have been individuals who engaged in practices that their
societies called magic and who sometimes referred to themselves as magicians. Within
modern occultism, which developed in nineteenth-century Europe, there are many self-described
magicians and people who practice ritual activities that they call magic. In this environment, the
concept of magic has again changed, usually being defined as a technique for bringing about
changes in the physical world through the force of one's will. This definition was pioneered
largely by the influential British occultist Aleister Crowley and is used in occultist movements
such as Wicca, LaVeyan Satanism, and chaos magic.
Definition[edit]
Main article: Magic and religion
[M]agic as a term is problematic. It did not arise as a straightforward attempt to describe an object or an action; it
does not represent an exclusive set of ideas. Instead, there developed an arrangement of ideas at a particular
point in time (Christianity and Christian evangelization) that made the concept of magic as we have come to
define it possible.
—Archaeologist Elizabeth Graham[1]
The historian Owen Davies stated that the word magic was "beyond simple definition",[2] and had
"a range of meanings".[3] Similarly, the historian Michael D. Bailey characterised magic as "a
deeply contested category and a very fraught label";[4] as a category, he noted, it was "profoundly
unstable" given that definitions of the term have "varied dramatically across time and between
cultures".[5] Scholars have engaged in extensive debates as to how to define magic,[6] with such
debates resulting in intense dispute.[7] Throughout such debates, the scholarly community has
failed to agree on a definition of magic, in a similar manner to how they have failed to agree on a
definition of religion.[7] Even among those throughout history who have described themselves as
magicians, there has been no common understanding of what magic is.[8]
Concepts of magic generally serve to sharply demarcate certain practices from other, otherwise
similar practices in a given society.[9] According to Bailey: "In many cultures and across various
historical periods, categories of magic often define and maintain the limits of socially and
culturally acceptable actions in respect to numinous or occult entities or forces. Even more
basically they serve to delineate arenas of appropriate belief."[10] In this, he noted that "drawing
these distinctions is an exercise in power".[10] Similarly, Randall Styers noted that attempting to
define magic represents "an act of demarcation" by which it is juxtaposed against "other social
practices and modes of knowledge" such as "religion" and "science".[11] The historian Karen
Louise Jolly described magic as "a category of exclusion, used to define an unacceptable way of
thinking as either the opposite of religion or of science".
Magic and Religion
Most cultures of the world have religious beliefs that supernatural powers
can be compelled, or at least influenced, to act in certain ways for good or
evil purposes by using ritual formulas. These formulas are, in a
sense, magic. By performing certain magical acts in a particular way,
crops might be improved, game herds replenished, illness cured or
avoided, animals and people made fertile. This is very different from
television and stage "magic" that depends on slight-of-hand tricks and
contrived illusions rather than supernatural power.
For those who believe that magic is an effective method for causing
supernatural actions, there are two major ways in which this commonly
believed to occur--sympathy and contagion. Sympathetic magic is
based on the principle that "like produces like." For instance, whatever
happens to an image of someone will also happen to them. This is the
basis for use of Voodoo dolls in the folk tradition of Haiti. If someone sticks
a pin into the stomach of the doll, the person of whom it is a likeness will be
expected to experience a simultaneous pain in his or her stomach.
Sympathetic magic is also referred to as imitative magic. Contagious
magic is based on the principle that things or persons once in contact
can afterward influence each other. In other words, it is believed that there
is a permanent relationship between an individual and any part of his or her
body. As a consequence, believers must take special precautions with
their hair, fingernails, teeth, clothes, and feces. If anyone obtained these
objects, magic could be performed on them which would cause the person
they came from to be affected. For instance, someone could use your
fingernail clippings in a magical ritual that would cause you to love them or
to fall ill and die.
In a belief system that uses magic as the most logical explanation for
illness, accidents, and other unexpected occurrences, there is no room for
natural causes or chance. Witchcraft provides the explanation--it can be
the cause for most effects. Since it can be practiced in secret, the
existence of witchcraft cannot be easily refuted with arguments. Believers
are not dissuaded by pointing out that there is no evidence that any
witchcraft was used against them. For example, you may wake up in the
middle of the night and go to get a drink of water. On the way, you trip over
a chair in the dark, which causes you to break your leg. You may be
convinced that it was an accident. However, if you believe in witchcraft,
you will ask why this accident happened to you and why now. Magic
practiced in secret by someone who wants to harm you is the answer. The
only reasonable questions are who performed the magic and why. The
answers to these questions come through divination which is a magical
procedure by which the cause of a particular event or the future is
determined. Once the guilty person is discovered, retribution may be
gained by public exposure and punishment or by counter witchcraft.
Divination is accomplished by many different methods around the world.
Shamans usually go into a trance to find out the answers from their spirit
helpers. The ancient Romans divined the outcome of battles or business
deals by autopsying chickens and examining the condition of their livers.
Divination is still popular with many people in the United States today.
There are individuals who set up business to divine the future for their
clients by examining such things as tea leaves in the bottom of a cup, lines
in the hand, and tarot cards.
In societies in which magic and witchcraft are accepted as realities, mental
illness is usually explained as being a consequence of witchcraft or the
actions of supernatural beings and forces. In Nigeria, folk curers are
licensed by the government to use supernatural means and herbal
remedies to cure people who are suffering from mental illness. Nigeria also
licenses doctors trained in Western medicine, which totally rejects the idea
of illness being caused by magic or other supernatural causes. However,
the Western trained doctors and the folk curers in Nigeria often work
cooperatively and send each other patients that they cannot cure with their
own approaches.
When witchcraft is a widespread belief in a society, it may be used as a
means of social control. Anti-social or otherwise deviant behavior often
results in an individual being labeled as a witch in such societies. Since
witches are feared and often ostracized or even killed when discovered, the
mere threat of being accused of witchcraft can be sufficient to force people
into modal behavior.
Cult
In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or
philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal. This
sense of the term is controversial and it has divergent definitions both in popular culture
and academia and it has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across
several fields of study.[1][2] It is usually considered pejorative.
An older sense of the word cult is a set of religious devotional practices that are conventional
within their culture, are related to a particular figure, and are often associated with a particular
place. References to the "cult" of a particular Catholic saint, or the imperial cult of ancient Rome,
for example, use this sense of the word.
While the literal and original sense of the word remains in use in the English language, a derived
sense of "excessive devotion" arose in the 19th century.[3] Beginning in the 1930s, cults became
the object of sociological study in the context of the study of religious behavior.[4] From the 1940s
the Christian countercult movement has opposed some sects and new religious movements, and
it labelled them as cults for their "un-Christian" unorthodox beliefs. The secular anti-cult
movement began in the 1970s and it opposed certain groups, often charging them with mind
control and partly motivated in reaction to acts of violence committed by some of their members.
Some of the claims and actions of the anti-cult movement have been disputed by scholars and
by the news media, leading to further public controversy.
In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a social group with socially
deviant or novel beliefs and practices,[5] although this is often unclear.[6][7][8] Other researchers
present a less-organized picture of cults, saying that they arise spontaneously around novel
beliefs and practices.[9] Groups which are said to be cults range in size from local groups with a
few members to international organizations with millions of members.
Definition[edit]
In the English-speaking world the word "cult" often carries derogatory connotations.[11] It has
always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term,
used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.[12][13]
In the 1970s, with the rise of secular anti-cult movements, scholars (but not the general public)
began abandoning the term "cult". According to The Oxford Handbook of Religious Movements,
"by the end of the decade, the term 'new religions' would virtually replace 'cult' to describe all of
those leftover groups that did not fit easily under the label of church or sect."[14]
Sociologist Amy Ryan has argued for the need to differentiate those groups that may be
dangerous from groups that are more benign.[15] Ryan notes the sharp differences between
definition from cult opponents, who tend to focus on negative characteristics, and those of
sociologists, who aim to create definitions that are value-free. The movements themselves may
have different definitions of religion as well.[16] George Chryssides also cites a need to develop
better definitions to allow for common ground in the debate. In Defining Religion in American
Law, Bruce J. Casino presents the issue as crucial to international human rights laws. Limiting
the definition of religion may interfere with freedom of religion, while too broad a definition may
give some dangerous or abusive groups "a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted legal
obligations".[17]
Religion scholar Megan Goodwin defined the term cult when used by laymen as often being a
shorthand that means a "religion I don't like".
Sect
A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political, or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of
a larger group. Although the term was originally a classification for religious separated groups, it
can now refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of
rules and principles.
In an Indian context, sect refers to an organized tradition
Etymology[edit]
A Catalogue of the Severall Sects and Opinions in England and other Nations: With a briefe Rehearsall of
their false and dangerous Tenents. Broadsheet. 1647
The word sect comes from the Latin noun secta (a feminine form of a variant past participle of
the verb sequi, to follow[2]), meaning "a way, road", and figuratively a (prescribed) way, mode, or
manner, and hence metonymously, a discipline or school of thought as defined by a set of
methods and doctrines. The present gamut of meanings of sect has been influenced by
confusion with the homonymous (but etymologically unrelated) Latin word secta (the feminine
form of the past participle of the verb secare, to cut).[2]
Sociological definitions and descriptions[edit]
Main article: Church-sect typology
There are several different sociological definitions and descriptions for the term.[3] Among the first
to define them were Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch (1912).[3] In the church-sect typology they
are described as newly formed religious groups that form to protest elements of their parent
religion (generally a denomination). Their motivation tends to be situated in accusations of
apostasy or heresy in the parent denomination; they are often decrying liberal trends in
denominational development and advocating a return to true religion. The
American sociologists Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge assert that "sects claim to be
authentic purged, refurbished version of the faith from which they split".[4] They further assert that
sects have, in contrast to churches, a high degree of tension with the surrounding society.[5] Other
sociologists of religion such as Fred Kniss have asserted that sectarianism is best described with
regard to what a sect is in tension with. Some religious groups exist in tension only with co-
religious groups of different ethnicities, or exist in tension with the whole of society rather than
the church which the sect originated from.[6]
Sectarianism is sometimes defined in the sociology of religion as a worldview that emphasizes
the unique legitimacy of believers' creed and practices and that heightens tension with the larger
society by engaging in boundary-maintaining practices.[7]
The English sociologist Roy Wallis[8] argues that a sect is characterized by
"epistemological authoritarianism": sects possess some authoritative locus for the legitimate
attribution of heresy. According to Wallis, "sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged
access to the truth or salvation" and "their committed adherents typically regard all those outside
the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'". He contrasts this with a cult that he described as
characterized by "epistemological individualism" by which he means that "the cult has no clear
locus of final authority beyond the individual member
