GREAT ZIMBABWE UNIVERSITY

BACHELOR OF ARTS HONORS DEGREE (RELIGIOUS STUDIES AND PHILOSOPHY)

INTAKE TYPE: BLOCK RELEASE

NAME: NYASHA CHUMA

REG NUMBER: M244253

ASSIGNMENT AREA: INTRODUCTION TO THEORIES AND METHODSS IN RELIGION

QN: “RELIGION IS NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT TO DEFINE.”

lives yet few things are more controversial to define than this discipline. In this regard;

anthropological, theological and philosophical definitions among others have been coined but

still not a wholesome definition has been established. These definitions have either been too

narrow to include all beliefs and practice which most believe are religions or too vague making

anything a religion as shall be indicated below. Even the popular evolutionary and projectionist

theories have sparked more controversy than answers in an attempt to address the notion in

question. It would therefore be wise for one studying this field to use a multidisciplinary

approach in order to establish a working definition.

To start, one easier way to define the term religion would have been the use of its etymological

definition. No doubt, etymology which explores word origins together with semantics which

analyses word meanings, interpretations and relations would go a long way in demystifying the

complications in the term religion. According to Nielsen (1996) the term religion originated from

the Latin word religare (to tie, to bind) which resonates well with religion’s power to bind a

person to a community, culture, course of action or ideology while earlier writers like Cicero

connected the term with relegere, which means to read over again emphasizing the ritualistic

nature of religions. Already, the availability of at least two probable words from which the term

originated from complicates the task of providing a singular definition. More still, religare would

be too broad a term to define religion generalizing anything that binds together as religion and

other institutions which are obviously not religion like politics which will fall under this same

blanket. On the contrary, relegere would be too narrow limiting religion only to rituals when it

goes beyond this to influence every day to day practical influence of the term to one’s lifestyle.
Given this complexity, it would be reasonable for one to conclude that religion is notoriously

difficult to define.

To add on, anthropologists have attempted to come up with a sound definition of religion.

According to Moser (2010), Edward Burnett Tylor, sometimes called the father of anthropology,

took an evolutionary approach to religion and coined the term animism which included

attributing a spirit to inanimate objects. Tylor defined religion as a belief in spiritual beings.

Even this enlightened definition has its own short comings too. It generalizes religion to a unified

system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and

forbidden beliefs and practices. It becomes worthy for one to consider, Moreland (2008), who

reiterates that in North Korea today, people practice an official policy of juche, which is a highly

nationalist policy including reverence and obeisance to the state leader (Kim Jong Un) and

unquestioning allegiance to the North Korean state. Certainly, such extreme form of nationalism

is different form what many would generally agree is religion. Besides, Taylor’s belief in

supernatural beings’ definition is shallow because such a mindset would be inconsiderate of

other world religions like Buddhism. For Buddhism the goal is to find lasting, unconditional

happiness and there are no gods or spirits to invoke for help. Buddhism is a path of self-

development which requires practitioners to take responsibility for themselves and yet there is

little controversy over its acceptance as a religion. Thus, while the anthropological approach to

religion has some grain of truth, it is certainly not a complete definition of religion which makes

it fair to underline that religion is notoriously hard to define.

As if this is not enough, more insights on the topic have been proposed by the theologians who

have come up with a theological definition of religion. Bowker (1970) lamented that although

most people tend to think of theology in the context of modern religious traditions, like Judaism
or Christianity, the concept actually dates back to ancient Greece. Philosophers like Plato and

Aristotle used it in reference to the study of the Olympian gods and the writings of authors

like Homer and Hesiod. Caputo (2001), has generally postulated that theological definitions

ascribe religion to encompass the nature of God, the relationship between God, humanity, and

the world, salvation, and eschatology. While many religions like Christianity and Islam have a

clear connection between humanity and a deity, this is not however true to all world religions.

Therefore, this definition too is too shallow to be considered the definition for religion making it

notoriously difficult to define religion.

Never the less, philosophy of religion has squarely dealt with the subject matter but has yielded

more questions than answers. The philosophical approach has interrogated religious concepts,

beliefs, terms, arguments and practices of religious adherents. Philosophy of religion draws on

all of the major areas of philosophy as well as other relevant fields, including theology, history,

sociology, psychology, and the natural sciences. According to Copan (2007) for example,

ontology has questioned the very basic idea of the existence of a deity. In 1077 AD, St Anselm

created an argument for the existence of God which came to be known as the Ontological

argument (https://iep.utm.edu/religion/). Anselm uses the illustration of a painter who has an idea

of what they will paint in their mind before painting it in reality illustrating the distinction

between our idea of something existing in the mind alone, verses existing both in the mind and in

reality. Paradoxically, the premise that the greatest conceivable Being exists in the

mind/understanding contradicts the general understanding of God as in many larger religions like

Christianity and Islam where God is beyond our understanding. The ontological argument seems

to fail because it relies on our ability to understand and reason about things that are beyond our
ability to understand or reason about. Philosophy’s attempt to establish the existence of a religion

fails us from the very onset further complicating the subject matter.

Conclusively, so much debate has been made in an attempt to define religion. Philosophical,

semantic as well as theological definitions have been put forward but all fall short from the

general yardstick to address the subject matter. These definitions are either too broad and vague

or too narrow ling important religious aspects out. No wonder why in the United States, the

Supreme Court set a working definition in 1890 of religion with reference to one's views of his

relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and

character, and of obedience to his will (https://study.com).

1. Bowker, John. 1970. Problems of Suffering in Religions of the World. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

2. Caputo, John. 2001. The Religious: Blackwell Readings in Continental Philosophy.

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

3. Copan, Paul. 2007. Loving Wisdom: Christian Philosophy of Religion. St. Louis: Chalice

Press.

4. https://iep.utm.edu/religion/ (retrieved on 10 0ctober 2024)

5. https://study.com (retrieved on 10 0ctober 2024)

6. Moreland, J. P. 2008.Consciousness and the Existence of God. London: Routledge.

7. Moser, Paul. 2010. The Evidence for God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. Nielsen, Kai. 1996. Naturalism without Foundations. Buffalo: Prometheus Press.

9. Timpe, Kevin. 2009. Arguing about Religion. London: Routledge.