BLOCK 1

The question of the origin of religion, perhaps, is as old as the question of the origin of human
itself. The human mind by its very nature is reflective, no matter how undeveloped it might be.
In the cultures of India and Greece matters of religion have been well-debated since the
beginning of their history. The Upanishads and other literatures testify to this fact. Although a
philosophical discussion on this notion is a later one, religion had its place in human life in its
primitive and unorganized form. Etymologically, the word ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin
root religare and it means ‘to bind fast’. Then ‘religion’ has certainly a strong emphasis on
community aspect. It is something that binds fast the members of religion together. But a general
definition, which is accepted by all, is very difficult and involves a series of problems. Religion
as a whole is looked at from various angles like: Historical, Psychological, Sociological, Ethical
and Aesthetical perspectives.

This block, consisting of four units, will deliberate on the nature, the definition of religion and
the theories that are put forward for the origin of religion.

Unit 1 studies the Meaning and Nature of Religion. The question of religion is a very complex
one. Hence in this unit we will be looking at the etymological meaning and then at different
meanings that are connoted by the term religion. The various stages of the development of
religion are discussed.

Unit 2 studies the Problem of Defining Religion. Religion in recent times is undergoing change
in its definition and meaning and therefore it is difficult to define it. This unit will look at some
of the scholarly definitions put forward by theologians, sociologists, philosophers,
Anthropologists and psychologists. Finally, we perceive the various paradoxes, complexities or
problems that are involved in the definitions

Unit 3 looks at some of the Theories of the Origin of Religion from the secular world. This unit
looks at the views given by Ernst Haeckel, anthropological origin of religion of Edward Burnett
Tylor, James George Frazer and Salomon Reinach, views of Sigmund Freud and James Henry
Leuba on religion and sociologist Emile Durkheim.

1
Unit 4 familiarizes us with the Theories of the Origin of Religion from the point of view of
growing religious consciousness. Despite secularism that has influenced many people religious
thought continues to be vigorous. In this unit we will know the growth of religious consciousness
in the primitive age, the experience of the Holy and certain critical views.

The understanding and meaning of religion is a complex task faced by many scholars even to this
day. But the phenomena continue to hover over most people. The ambiguity and plurality of
views proposed on the origin of religion makes religion a much more complex phenomena.

2
UNIT 1 MEANING AND NATURE OF RELIGION

Contents

1.1. Objectives
1.2. Introduction
1.3. Meaning of Religion
1.4. Nature of Religion
1.5. Developmental Stages of Religion
1.6. Let Us Sum Up
1.7. Key Words
1.8. Further Readings and References
1.9. Answers to Check Your Progress

1.1. OBJECTIVES

In this paper we try to understand the very meaning of religion leaving the discussions on
definitions and the theories of the origin of religion since those are the topics of the subsequent
units. However, meaning and nature cannot be dealt-with without touching both those topics as
well. So, we will refer to them without going into the details of them. After going through the
etymological meaning of the word, we will make a search into the different meanings of
religion from the background of various disciplines like phenomenology, sociology, psychology
etc. Thereafter, we will look into the nature and developing stages of religions.

1.2. INTRODUCTION

What is religion? A very complex question! We know religion and we live religion. But, how do
we explain or define religion? Religion is one of the most sensitive and vulnerable aspects of
human life from the very beginning. Though it looks simple, it is not a simple reality to be easily
defined or explained. There are many theories proposed regarding the origin of religion as a
result of the development of speculative, intellectual and scientific mind. However, in spite of
the differences in the understanding of this important element, it is confirmed that it is purely a
human activity and it has become an inevitable aspect of human life. In the West, under the

1
influence of the inherited tradition of Judeo-Christian tradition, religion was understood more
theistically while in the East, it was mostly a respond to the experience of the natural powers that
are beyond human control and also to the inner urge for an ethical and moral reference.

1.3. MEANING OF RELIGION

Etymologically, the word ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin root religare and it means ‘to bind
fast’. Then ‘religion’ has certainly a strong emphasis on community aspect. It is something that
binds fast the members of it together.

When we start thinking seriously on religion, naturally we fall upon thoughts of the definition of
religion. There are numberless definitions of religion. The meaning and definition of religion
differs according to the socio-cultural and psychological background of the person who reflects
upon it. Even the political settings insert its influence on the understanding of the meaning of
religion. Some of the definitions are phenomenological and try to expose the common elements
that we see in the acknowledged world religions. For example, the human recognition of a
superhuman power entitled to obedience and worship. Some others are interpretative definitions.
Under this we may group the psychological definitions – the feelings, acts and experiences of the
individual men in so far as they consider themselves to stand in relations to what they may call
the divine; sociological definitions– a set of beliefs, practices and institutions which men have
evolved in various societies; naturalistic definitions – a body of scruples which impede the free
exercise of our faculties; and religious definitions – religion is the recognition that everything in
the world is the manifestation of a power that is beyond human intellect.

None of these definitions, nevertheless, are complete and exhaustive. The word religion is not an
exclusive word rather it is inclusive. It includes manifold elements and aspects of life like
beliefs, feelings, experiences, values, symbols, worship, rituals, festivals, cult and cultures, myth
and mythology.

Studying the primitive religion, the anthropologist Sir E.B. Tylor in his book Primitive Culture
gives a short definition of religion where he understands religion as “the belief in spiritual
beings.” There are many objections raised against such understanding of religion on the basis of
its incompleteness. The critics argue that ‘besides belief, practice also must be emphasised.

2
Another objection is that the faith and believes and the practices are not always towards spiritual
beings. Or else, our scope of belief must be extended and widened to include even ‘nothing’.
However, there are also positive side in looking at religion from that perspective. It makes very
clear about the religious attitude of the believers and also the object to which the believers refer
to. According to another anthropologist Sir J.G. Frazer, as presented in his book the Golden
Bough, religion is a ‘propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to
direct and control the course of nature and of human life. This shows that powers referred to in
this context are always of superior nature (superior to man). To cope with this supra-human
powers, ancient religion made use of magic, sorcery, taboos, myth and mythological stories and
so on.

1.4. NATURE OF RELIGION

The Primitive Forms of Religions

The religion is often spoken in relation to something sacred. There is no religion without having
such a notion. Now the various aspects/concepts used to express the general characteristics of
this ‘sacred’ in the primitive religion were very simple. The notions like ‘unseen’, ‘unknown’,
‘infinite’ ‘immanence and transcendence’ etc. are notions of advanced theology. The ancient
notions used are rather quasi-negative. Scholars trace the following general characteristics of the
‘sacred’ which may explain the nature of it in the primitive thought.

i) The sacred as the forbidden: Polynesian term taboo in the primitive religion could be one
that comes close and conveys the sense of ‘sacred’ – scer and sanctus. This point to the idea that
something is ‘marked off’ as to be shunned. Thus enforced a sense of mystic sanction or penalty
if avoided. Because of this aspect of sanction and punishment added, taboo comes to stand for
un-cleanliness and sin on the one hand, and while it can also be interpreted as means of self
protection on the part of the sacred against defying contact on the other hand.
ii) The sacred as the mysterious: This is another quasi-negative notion regarding the sacred.
What was strange and new was treated in the primitive time as sacred having non-normal nature.

3
We cannot say it as abnormal rather it was non-normal nature. It was indeed a mystery,
something beyond the human grasp, human understanding and control.
iii) The sacred as the secret: The sacred was understood having a mystic and mysterious
power and therefore, it was something secret. This sense of secret was emphasised and projected
strongly through the insistence of exoticism, initiation, exclusion of women etc. from the
religious moments of rites and rituals.
iv) The sacred as potent: Perhaps one of the positive and most fundamental conception of the
sacred is that the efficacy of the sacredness is identified with the magical and mystical power
attributed to it. Everything is understood as having an indwelling potency, but whatever is sacred
manifests this potency in an extra-ordinary degree.
v) The sacred as the animate: There are lots of evidences to show that the primitive gods
were conceived as personified anthropomorphic characters dwelling somewhere apart.
vi) The sacred as ancient: another element found in the primitive religion is the practice of
ancestor worship – the organized cult of ancestors marking a stage of development in the
primitive way of thinking. The ancestor worship is found even in religions that are purely ethical
like the Chinese primitive religions.

Higher Forms of Religion

The higher forms of religions have developed on a pre-existing basis through a process of
selection and development. Certainly it must have been in response to the demands of modern
advanced thinking, need of better expressions, harmony between past and present experiences;
and also to reach a position which shall satisfy the demands of feeling and reflexion and give
confidence for facing the future challenges. The motive forces that urged for a better presentation
of religion could be:-

i) The rapid progress on scientific knowledge and thought;

ii) Changes in the Social order of man;
iii) The enriched forms of ideas and expressions;
iv) The deeper intellectual interest in the subject; and
v) The modern tendencies to avoid superstitions and to substitute it with more
rational and scientific thoughts

4
The higher forms of religions discuss reality in terms of transcendence, oneness, supremacy and
absoluteness, and also about the ethical schemes in relation to social unity and harmony, justice,
human destiny, human freedom, etc.

Ethical element is of fundamental importance in determining the quality of a religion. It is a

powerful factor in elevating the object of worship, the religious relation, and the religious life.
Another important aspect that the religion is concerned is the problem of eschatology. It is
related to the ultimate destiny of man and the world. Eschatological motives may powerfully
affect the working of religion. In the primitive religions, the eschatological ideas gather round
the fate of the dead, and are unleavened by ethical elements while in the higher religions, it was
accelerated by the quickened moral consciousness and the sense of the value of the individual.
The very often accepted world religions are Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and
Sikhism.

In history we see that there were different approaches to God and religion. From the negative
perspective, we see the trend of atheism. It is the belief that there is no God of any kind. Another
trend is agnosticism which literally means ‘not-knowism’. That means, we are not able to affirm
or deny the existence of God. This trend argues that our intellect is incapable of knowing God
and making any kind of judgement on God. Still another stand is scepticism. This approach
simply means doubting. That means, we cannot have certainity about anything, not even on
material things. Then, of course, we cannot speak with surety about metaphysical and abstract
realities. There is still another perspective, that is, naturalism. According to this theory, every
aspect of human existence and experience including moral and religious life could be properly
and adequately explained in terms of nature.

Coming to the positive approaches to God and religion, deism can refer to the trend of thought
according to which this universe was created and set on motion by a God and left it alone to
operate. The deists teach that natural theology is enough to explain the religious matters. Finally,
perhaps not the last, the common stand, that is theism. Theism refers to a particular doctrine
concerning the nature of a God and his relationship to the universe. It conceives of a God as
personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

5
Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) What is the meaning of religion?

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) What are the various ways of defining religion?

………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

1.5. DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES OF RELIGION

As we discuss on religion and its stages of development, certainly it is necessary to look at the
beginnings of the thought. As it is mentioned already, transition to higher forms of religion was
inevitable in the rapidly changing social situations. There was urgency for man to reconsider
current and inherited beliefs and practices to gain some harmony between past and the present
experiences. As a result we see the developments from the very basic worship patterns of the
primitive man to that of the present age. The developmental stages of the evolution of religion
could be enumerated as Totemism, Animism, Pantheism, Polytheism, Monotheism, Monism.

6
The terms of totemism and animism are used to explain the set of religious beliefs of the lower
caste. The essential feature of totemism is the belief in a supernatural connection between a
group of people and a group of objects like certain animal species, sometimes plants, or more
rarely other objects. Usually there is a taboo on killing or eating an animal totem. In totemism we
find that plant species may be totems just as animal species or rocks are. Animism denotes the
collection of beliefs possessed by the Dravidian tribes who have not even nominally been
admitted to the caste system. The general nature of animism may perhaps be explained as the
belief that everything which has life or motion has also a soul or spirit, and all natural
phenomena are caused by direct personal agency.

The theistic tradition recognizes and accepts the existence of God, more specifically a personal
God. Therefore, theism is often understood as synonym for monotheism. It is a belief in a
personal god. Pantheism is ‘God-is-all-ism’. According to this view all is God and God is all.
God is identical with the world and nature. In other words, God and universe are one. God is not
a reality separate from the world and remote from it. The particular individual objects have no
absolute existence of their own, rather they are either the different modes of the universal
substance or parts of the divine whole. Polytheism, according to the German Sociologist Max
Müller, was the form of worship of God during the ancient times. Polytheism is the stage of
development in the religious thought when the belief in and worship of many individual Gods
existed. Indeed, it was the result of the anthropomorphic personification of the natural powers
that was beyond the control of human. In other words, such natural powers were personified and
attributed to them of the human powers and qualities but with maximum nature. The socio-
political and cultural conditions and circumstances affected the forms assumed by the beliefs and
worships of these many Gods. Monotheism is the beginning of believing in one Supreme God
even in the polytheistic situation. In the monotheistic tradition we see that there is a demand to
abandon many older beliefs, hopes, fears and customs relating to many gods. Even though they
have the concept of many gods, they believe in one Supreme God and other gods are only
subordinate. Or they believed, as Max Müller observes, that the multiple gods are only the
manifestations of the one supreme. Monism is the belief in one reality. The word was coined by
Christian Wolf in the west though it was existed from the ancient times.

1.6. LET US SUM UP

7
Religion being an undeniable aspect of human life, any study on human life will remain half
done if this particular aspect is not taken into consideration. Religion is being studied from
different perspectives and it could be investigated from Sociological, Anthropological,
Phenomenological, Philosophical, Ethical and Aesthetical perspectives. Today there is an added
scope, that is, the field of comparative religion. It is an urgent need and demand of the present
world community to promote mutual, mature and unprejudiced understanding of others and their
religiousness.

We are living in a postmodern world. And our world is becoming a global village in every
aspect. So, none can live in an isolated world of one’s own. This postmodern existential
predicament in a way compels every person to learn more about oneself and also about others. It
will certainly enhance one’s life and it will certainly facilitate the peaceful co-existence of
human as a whole, promote mature and unprejudiced relations, and without doubt, it will help
everyone develop an integral vision of life and to work for the welfare of the whole world.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) Which are the developmental stages of the evolution of religion?

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) Why is the study of religion, especially the comparative study of religion relevant and
urgently needed today?

………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..

8
 …………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

1.7. KEY WORDS

Atheism – it is the belief that there is no God of any kind.

Agnosticism – it means ‘not-knowism’ which implies that we are not able to affirm or deny the
existence of God.

Scepticism – it means doubting. That means, we cannot have certainity about anything, either of
material or of spiritual things.

Naturalism – it means every aspect of human existence and experience including moral and
religious life could be properly and adequately explained in terms of nature.

Deism – it means this universe was created and set on motion by a God and left it alone to
operate.

Totemism – it is the belief in a supernatural connection between a group of people and a group of
objects like certain animal species, sometimes plants, or more rarely other objects.

Animism – it the belief that everything which has life or motion has also a soul or spirit, and all
natural phenomena are caused by direct personal agency.

Pantheism – it is ‘God-is-all-ism’, which all is God and God is all and God is not a reality
separate from the world and remote from it.

Polytheism – it is the belief in and worship of many individual Gods.

Monotheism - it is belief in one Supreme God and considers other gods as subordinate.

Monism – it is the belief in the existence of only one reality.

1.8. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

9
Charlesworth, Max. Philosophy and Religion: from Plato to Postmodernism. England: One
World Pub., 2006.

Hastings, James. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Vols. 12. New York: T 7 T Clark, 1980.

Hick, John H. Philosophy of Religion. 4th Edition. Delhi: Pearson Education Pte. Ltd., 1990.

Nayak, G.C. Understanding Religious Phenomenon. Bangalore: Dharmaram Pub., 1997.

Schleiermacher, Friederich. On Religion. London: Harper Tochbook, 1958.

Smith, Huston. The Religions of Man. New York: Harper and Row Pub., 1958.

Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. The Meaning and End of Religions: a Revolutionary Approach to the
Great Religious Traditions. London: SPCK, 1978.

Thiselton, Anthony C. A Concise Encyclopaedia of the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: One

World Pub., 2006.

1.9. ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I

1. The word ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin root religare and it means ‘to bind fast’.
Then ‘religion’ has certainly a strong emphasis on community aspect. It is something that
binds fast the members of it together. What we call religion is very complex and
inclusive. It includes manifold elements and aspects of life like beliefs, feelings,
experiences, values, symbols, worship, rituals, festivals, cult and cultures, myth and
mythology.
2. The different ways of defining religion are phenomenological, psychological,
sociological, naturalistic, and religious.

Answers to Check Your Progress II

10
1.The developmental stages of the evolution of religion are - Totemism, Animism,
Pantheism, Polytheism, Monotheism, Monism.
2.The postmodern world in which we live is becoming a global village in every aspect. At the
same time we encounter elements of social unrest and atrocities on the basis of religion in
every part of the world. It is due to the fanatic thoughts that creep into the mind of people due
to sheer ignorance about the true teachings of both one’s own religion and of other religions.
This compels every person to learn more about oneself and also about others. And the study
of religions both of one’s own and of others will certainly enhance one’s life and it will
certainly facilitate the peaceful co-existence of human as a whole, promote mature and
unprejudiced relations, and without doubt, it will help everyone develop an integral vision of
life and to work for the welfare of the whole world. Hence it is relevant and much needed in
the modern world.

11
UNIT 2 PROBLEMS OF DEFINING RELIGION

Contents

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Etymology
2.3 Definitions of the word Religion
2.4 Problems of Defining Religion
2.5 Complexities in the Definitions of Religion
2.6 Let Us Sum Up
2.7 Key Words
2.8 Further Readings and References
2.9 Answers to Check Your Progress

2.0 OBJECTIVES

In a multi-ethnic and philosophically diverse global culture not only religion is

undergoing radical changes but also its very meanings and definitions. Therefore the main
objective of this unit is to show to students the series of problems that are present in defining
religion. In order to do that we will first look at what relgion is, its etymological meanings and
scholarly definitions of theologians, philosophers, socialogists, anthropologist and pshychologist.
Then we will also briefly discuss the various problems and complexities that are present in these
definitions and finally with a comprehensive conclusion. thus it will enable a student …

• To know the essence of religion

• To understand its evolutions in the Branches of philosophy
• To see the various paradoxes, complexities or problems that are involved in the
definitions
• To have comprehensive outlook towards meaning and definition of religion

2.1 INTRODUCTION

1
 Religion has continued to play a vital role in the lives of individuals worldwide. Its hold
remains as strong as ever among both the under-privileged, as well as the economically and
intellectually advanced people. We do well remember that the last but previous American
presidential election was also fought on religion, more precisely on Christian religious
sentiments and convictions. In Japan in spite of the apparent materialistic culture with the bullet
trains, camera cell-phones and pocket-sized supercomputers, it is recognizable that there co-
exists a thoroughly deified conception of nature. In America, for example, church attendance has
remained relatively stable in the past 40 years. In Africa the emergence of Christianity has
occurred at a startling rate. While Africa could claim roughly 10 million Christians in 1900,
recent estimates put that number closer to 200 million. The rise of Islam as a major world
religion, especially its new-found influence in the West, is another significant development. The
day-by-day additions of commoners and the celebrities to Buddhism, the increasing influence of
the ‘gurus’ and yoga-centres, speak of the vitality of Buddhism and Hinduism beyond Asia.
Unfortunately, the only exception to the renewed religious vitality seems to be the Western
Europe. (For in Europe 13% of the people declare that they have no religion, 5% are militantly
anti-religious, and a much larger percentage than the mentioned here are indifferent to religion
although officially said to be belonging to the church). But it cannot refute the spirit of the
vitality of religion that is seen today. The question of our discussion here is not over the religious
vitality but over the very concept or definition of religion. Does the definition of religion bring
us to the whole truth of what religion is? Or what are the problems and complexities that are
seriously concerned in defining religion? It would be impossible for one to enter into this realm
without going to the etymological meanings and the various scholarly definitions of religion.

2.2 ETYMOLOGY

The etymology of the English word ‘religion’ is said to have possibly emerged from its
root ‘religio’ in Latin; ‘Religio’ literally means obligation, bond or reverence. It is also said to be
connected with the other following Latin terms: religare, relegere, relinquere. The original ‘re-
ligare’ would mean - to bind back, to tie tight/again and it indicates “a bond between man and
the gods”; ‘re-legere’ - to read again, or to remove/reduce, (say for example doubts) may express
“the scrupulous attention to all the signs and manifestations (omens) of invisible powers shown

2
in the early Roman religion”; and ‘re-linquere’ (to leave again/fully, to give up fully) might
mean the monastic life or the aspect of surrender, dependence, and faith expressed in religious
worship/life. But it is to the term (religare) that the etymology of the word religion is often
connected with perhaps to emphasize the ritualistic nature of religion.

Some scholars like Jonathan Z. Smith argue that religion doesn’t really exist — there is
only culture. He in his book Imagining Religion writes:“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 scholar’s study. It is created for the scholar’s analytic
purposes by his imaginative acts of comparison and generalization. Religion has no existence
apart from the academy.”

It is true that many societies do not draw a clear line between their culture and what
scholars would call “religion.” This does not mean that religion doesn’t exist. Religion does
exists, for it is claimed that no human society has ever existed without religion, and would
probably never exist without it, and that the aesthetic experience in modernity is nothing but “the
secularized rest of and substitute for” an original religious experience. Rudolf Brandner also
implies that religion, being fundamental to human existence, will always exist in the human
society in spite of all the scientific-technological progress. But in defining the word religion/what
religion is one may be fraught with difficult. Why there are difficulties in defining religion. What
are problems and complexities that are involved in defining them should be our serious concern.
To enter into this reality one needs to study the various definitions and descriptions of religion.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) What is the etymology of the word religion?

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..

3
 …………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) Existence of religion becomes important why?
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

2.3 DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD “RELIGION”

"Religion" is a difficult word to define. This commonly used word seems to have arrived
at entire ambiguity in modern times, apparently reflecting the multi-ethnic and philosophically
diverse global culture that we currently find ourselves in. Therefore the task of definition finds
itself in troubled times, having feet planted firmly in mid-air. Yet this word is not without
reference or meaning, and is employed quite often in every day conversation. When we speak of
"a Religion", we are using the term to classify something, and when we speak of "the Religious",
we are seeking to capture those with some distinguishable characteristics. So what do we
actually mean when we use the word "Religion"? Or better put: "How do we define Religion?"
This leads us to back to where we started: the task of definition.

DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS

Dictionaries have made many attempts to define the word religion:

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990): defines religion as “Human recognition of
superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience"

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: "Religion - belief in the existence of god or gods who
has / have created the universe and given man a spiritual nature which continues to exist after the
death of the body... particular, system of faith and worship based on such a belief...controlling
influence on one life; something one is devoted or committed to."

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with

ardor and faith."

4
Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Edition): says "any specific system of belief
and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy” is religion. This definition
would exclude religions that do not engage in worship. It implies that there are two important
components to religion.

One’s belief and worship in a deity or deities. One’s ethical behavior towards other persons. This
dual nature of religion is expressed clearly in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) in
Matthew 22:36-39:

"Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with thy entire mind. This is the first
and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Wikipedia defines religion as: "... a system of social coherence based on a common group of
beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered
to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values,
institutions, traditions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought."

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: lists the traits of religions as:

• Belief in supernatural beings (gods).

• A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
• Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
• A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
• Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration),
which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of
ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
• Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
• A worldview or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual
therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the
world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
• A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the worldview.
• A social group bound together by the above.

5
This definition captures much of what religion is across diverse cultures.

SOME SCHOLARLY DEFINITIONS

THEOLOGIANS ON RELIGION
The famous author William James in his book “Religious Experience” gives a famous
tentative definition of personal religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men
in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may
consider divine". Through this he gives prime emphasis to the personal dimension of religion. He
further states “… the belief that there is an unseen order and that our supreme good lies in
harmoniously adjusting ourselves there to.”
For Schleiermacher the sine qua non of religion was experience; a vibrant, deep, and
transcendent feeling of the divine which caused him to define religion as "absolute dependence".
This feeling of dependence is what Schleiermacher sees in all of the world religions as the
tremendous sensation invoked at the thought of standing before what is Supreme in the universe.
This experiential definition finds a central place in Schleiermacher’s religion. The most
appealing thought about his definition is that it captures the meaning and purpose conveyed
through religious experience. To stand beneath and up against the Ultimate is to find one’s self
shadowed by its presence, and this experience creates an ardent sense of meaning in discovering
where it is that you stand and who it is that you are.
Apart from this pragmatic and existential ways of defining religion some prominent
theologians’ have defined religion in terms of God’s mystery, power, transcendence, majesty,
and wonder, and religion as the response to these concepts. Such prominent theologians are
Augustine, John Calvin, Karl Barth Rudolf Otto etc. But I would like to state the most famous
and often quoted definition of religion of Rudolf Otto. He defines religion in terms of "the
Holy" (heilige), that is, the mysterious dread and wonder conveyed by the idea of the Ultimate.
"The Holy" to Otto is a way in which we understand the aesthetic elements within religion,
which emphasize beauty, truth, and goodness. This category of interpretation stresses the great
wonder and awe brought about through religion, as well as the earnest moral desire to know and
do the good. The another word that Otto coined to categorize and understand religion is called
the numinous. The numinous, refers to an intangible, unseen, but compelling reality that inspires
both fascination and dread". For Otto, the numinous is a lens through which we can understand

6
the irrational aspects of religion, for the tremendous mystery (mysterium tremendum) of reality is
beyond us and therefore cannot be truly understood in rational categories of thought.

The another great historian, novelist, theologian and philosopher Mircea Eliade in his
“The Sacred and the Profane” partially builds on Otto's The Idea of the Holy to show how
religion emerges from the experience of the sacred, and myths of time and nature. His
understanding of religion centers on his concept of hierophany (manifestation of the Sacred) —a
concept that includes, but is not limited to, the older and more restrictive concept of theophany
(manifestation of a God). From the perspective of religious thought, Eliade argues, hierophanies
give structure and orientation to the world, establishing a sacred order. The "profane" space of
nonreligious experience can only be divided up geometrically: it has no "qualitative
differentiation and, hence, no orientation [is] given by virtue of its inherent structure".

Thus, profane space gives man no pattern for his behavior. In contrast to profane space,
the site of a hierophany has a sacred structure to which religious man conforms himself. A
hierophany amounts to a "revelation of an absolute reality, opposed to the non-reality of the vast
surrounding expanse". As an example of "sacred space" demanding a certain response from man,
Eliade gives the story of Moses halting before Yahweh’s manifestation at the burning bush
(Exodus 3: 5) and taking off his shoes. He says religious behavior is not only an imitation of, but
also a participation in, sacred events, and thus restores the mythical time of origins. Eliade argues
that religious thought in general rests on a sharp distinction between the Sacred and the profane;
whether it takes the form of God, gods, or mythical Ancestors, the Sacred contains all "reality",
or value, and other things acquire "reality" only to the extent that they participate in the sacred.

Paul Connelly another theologian defines religion in terms of the sacred and the
spiritual. He says, "Religion originates in an attempt to represent and order beliefs, feelings,
imaginings and actions that arise in response to direct experience of the sacred and the spiritual.
As this attempt expands in its formulation and elaboration, it becomes a process that creates
meaning for itself on a sustaining basis, in terms of both its originating experiences and its own
continuing responses."

7
 He defines the sacred as: "The sacred as a mysterious manifestation of power and
presence that is experienced as both primordial and transformative, inspiring awe and rapt
attention. And the spiritual as" a perception of the commonality of mindfulness in the world that
shifts the boundaries between self and other, producing a sense of the union of purposes of self
and other in confronting the existential questions of life, and providing a mediation of the
challenge-response interaction between self and other, one and many, that underlies existential
questions."

Another famous protestant theologian Paul Tillich says - Religion is not a special
function of human spiritual life, but it is the dimension of depth in all of its functions… Religion
is ultimate concern.” God, he says, is human’s ultimate concern. The divine is a matter of
passion and interest for human being, avoidable only by being completely indifferent. What
follows in this definition of religion is that worldviews such as Atheism, Agnosticism, Secular
Humanism, Scientism, and Buddhism can be thoroughly held to be religions. This broad
definition focuses more on the subject, or the one who believes, then on the actual content or
propositional doctrine that is adhered to.

PHILOSOPHERS ON RELIGION

Kant who brought in a Copernican revolution in the modern philosophy, while

discussing on concept of God do not focus primarily upon on what religious content and function
this concept may have for humans and their activity — e.g., how God may be an object of
worship etc., Their focus is more upon properly locating the concept of God within a
systematically ordered set of basic philosophical principles that account for the order and
structure of world. External ritual, superstition and hierarchical church order he sees all of these
as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the
principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The idea of God for Kant is totally
immanent within human moral consciousness .For him religion is more intimately affiliated to
the social moral order. Religion is well knit within the ethical commonworld. This linking of
morality and religious belief will have positive value for a believer's reflective appropriation and
practice of faith.

8
J. S. Mill, the English philosopher and economist says: "The essence of religion is the strong and
earnest direction of the conditions and desires towards an ideal object recognized as of the
highest excellence, and as rightly paramount over all selfish objects of desire."
Hegel defined religion as "the knowledge possessed by the finite mind of its nature as absolute
mind."

Alfred North whitehead, the English mathematician and process philosopher defines "Religion
is what the individual does with his own solitude. If you are never solitary, you are never
religious."

Thomas Paine, American political philosopher at the last moment of his life said: "The world is
my country, mankind are my brotherhood and to do good is my religion."

SOCIOLOGIST’S 0N RELIGION

The classical, seminal sociological theorists of the late 19th and early 20th century were
greatly interested in religion and its effects on society. They attempt to explain the dialectical
relationship i.e. The effects of society on religion and the effects of religion on society.

Karl Marx: For, "Marx did not believe in science for science’s sake…he believed that he
was also advancing a theory that would…be a useful tool…[in] effecting a revolutionary
upheaval of the capitalist system in favor of socialism”. As such, the crux of his arguments was
that humans are best guided by reason. Religion, Marx held, was a significant hindrance to
reason, inherently masking the truth and misguiding followers. He said, "Religion is the sigh of
the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the
opium of the people." It soothes them and dulls their senses to the pain of oppression than for a
reform. But later when he proposed an antithesis (freedom as response) to alienation he never
suggested that religion ought to be prohibited.

Émile Durkheim: Durkheim, a Frenchman, placed himself in the positivist tradition,

meaning that he thought of his study of society as dispassionate and scientific. Religion, he
argued, was an expression of social cohesion. In his book ‘Elementary Forms Of Religious Life’
while studying the anthropological data of indigenous Australians especially the totems the

9
aborigines venerate he said they are actually expressions of their own conceptions of society
itself. This is true not only for the aborigines, he argues, but for all societies. Therefore Religion,
for Durkheim, is not "imaginary, Religion is very real; it is an expression of society itself, and
indeed, there is no society that does not have religion. We perceive as individuals a force greater
than ourselves, which is our social life, and give that perception a supernatural face. Religion is
an expression of our collective consciousness, which is the fusion of all of our individual
consciousnesses which then creates a reality of its own.

Durkheim's definition of religion, from Elementary Forms, is as follows: "A 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." This is a functional definition of religion, meaning that it explains
what religion does in social life: essentially, it unites societies.

Max Weber: Weber differed from Marx and Emile Durkheim in that he focused his work on the
effects of religious action and inaction. Instead of discussing religion as a kind of
misapprehension (an "opiate of the people,") or as social cohesion, Weber did not attempt to
reduce religion to its essence. Instead, he examines how religious ideas and groups interacted
with other aspects of social life. In doing so, Weber gives religion credit for shaping a person's
image of the world, and this image of the world can affect their view of their interests, and
ultimately how they decide to take action.

For Weber, religion is best understood as it responds to the human need for theodicy and
soteriology. Human beings are troubled, he says, with the question of theodicy – the question of
how the extraordinary power of a divine God may be reconciled with the imperfection of the
world that he has created and rules over. People need to know, for example, why there is
undeserved good fortune and suffering in the world. Religion offers people soteriological
answers, or answers that provide opportunities for salvation– relief from suffering, and
reassuring meaning.

Fiedrich Engels, the German socialist "Religion is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men's
minds of those external forces which control their early life."

10
David Barrett, in 'The New Believers', defines religion as 'a social construct encompassing
beliefs and practices which enable people, individually and collectively, to make some sense of
the Great Questions of life and death'. B. Malinowski says religion “relieves anxiety and
enhances social integration.

ANTHROPOLOGISTS ON RELIGION

Anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences

developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion
does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion
as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and
thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the
formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”
According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview, and how this dictates
one's thoughts and actions. Thus religion is considered by some sources to extend to causes,
principles, or activities believed in with zeal or conscientious devotion concerning points or
matters of ethics or conscience, and not necessarily including belief in the supernatural.

PSYCHOLOGISTS ON RELIGION

With the dawn of psychology religion or defining of religion took a different strand. The
psychologists like Freud, Feuerbach, and Carl Jung started to perceive religion as something
psychologically produced within human beings and transferred or projected as something outside
of themselves.

For instance Jung defines religion as “a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be
formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful
consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as "powers": spirits,
demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world
as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or
grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.

11
 For Jung religion has its origination in the mind of man. Religion is that mental process
by which we adapt ourselves to our concepts of external "powers" and seek to please them by
ritual action and contemplation. The mind must play a central role in religious phenomenology
and must be given its due place as the determining factor. This will find a very naïve interaction
between human and divine.

Clifford Geertz defined religion as a cultural system: "A religion is a system of symbols
which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by
formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such
an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

In short religion is the belief in and worship of an ultimate reality. A particular system of
faith and worship based on such a belief; and an interest or pursuit followed with devotion and
attachment, and which has a controlling influence on one’s life. It is a multifarious phenomenon,
which includes various distinct dimensions such as ritual, mythological or narrative, doctrinal,
ethical, social or institutional, experiential, and material dimensions. In other words, a religion
includes distinctive worldviews, kinds of experience, social patterns, and material forms such as
buildings, sacred sites, works of art, and so on. But what actually are the problems these
definitions of religion have.

Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) Which among the dictionary definitions captures much of what religion is across diverse
cultures?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

12
 2) How do you understand the term ‘Holy’ used by Rudolf Otto in defining religion?
………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………..
3) What is the idea of God/Religion according Immanuel Kant?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

4) Why does Karl Marx call religion as the ‘opium of the people’?

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

5) How does Max Weber differ from Durkheim and Marx on the concept of religion?

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

2.4 PROBLEMS OF DEFINING RELIGION

Though we have studied definition given by various dictionaries, academic scholars,
philosophers, psychologists, sociologists and others still none of the definition is totally
satisfying. For either they are intellectual, affective or functional definitions. Taking one and

13
leaving out the other. The various authors keep redefining religion in the light of their own thus
making the meaning of ‘religion’ ambiguous and problematic. Mariasusai Dhavamony, speaking
of the complications with regard to the concept of religion, says, the term ‘religion’ brings to
mind different ideas for different people. Some consider it belief in God or the act of praying or
of participating in the ritual. Others understand it to be the act of meditating on something divine,
sacred, spiritual. Still others think that it has to do with emotional and individual attitude to
something beyond this world. There are some who simply identify religion with morality. The
way of studying the religious life of humanity depends to a large extent on one’s experience with
what one calls religious. Therefore it does not seem possible to define religion comprehensively
in a precise logical way. Concerning the enormous diversity relating to the concept of religion,
Winston L. King says: “So many definitions of religion have been framed in the West over the
years that even a partial listing would be impractical.” So let us now turn towards the problems
and complexities that are present in the definitions that we have discussed.

2.5 COMPLEXITIES IN THE DEFINITIONS OF RELIGION

One of the primary causes for the problem of defining religion is its very complexity of
nature. No moment a person can say that he has attained the whole truth of religion or defined
the unique essence of religion. This is reason no particular distinctive essence of religion is
possible all that one can look for is some common characteristics that would enable one to
identify religion. As a result today many scholars of philosophy of religion see the definitions of
religion tend to suffer from one of two problems: they are either too narrow and exclude many
belief systems which most agree as religious, or they are too vague, wide, generic and
ambiguous, suggesting that just about any and everything is a religion.
A good example of a narrow definition is the common attempt to define “religion” as
“belief in God /supernatural. It is effectively excluding polytheistic religions and atheistic
religions while including theists who have no religious belief system. Some religion doesn’t
accept the idea of the supernatural. For these traditions, religion is entirely natural for example
the old religion of Europe and the Scandinavian Myth don't have a supernatural aspect. Their
gods and giants are as much a part of the natural world as humans, they are just other races that
exist along with us. Another obvious exception to our definitions is Buddhism. It has no central

14
deity and is not even superficially similar to any Western or mid-Eastern-religion. Therefore
members of these religions will be rather offended by our claims that what they practice is not
religion at all.

A good example of a vague definition is the tendency to define religion as a “worldview”

— but how can every worldview qualifies as a religion? For instance Edward Caird’s definition
of religion as “the expression of man’s ultimate attitude to the universe” or of Vergilius Ferm’s
“To be religious is to effect in some way and in some measure a vital adjustment to whatever is
reacted to or regarded implicitly or explicitly as worthy of serious and ulterior concern” are
below the sufficient mark as they are too wide definitions to let in even non-religious ideologies
within the class of religion.

Some of the definitions we have discussed for instance, the definition of William James
though he emphasizes on personal spiritual solitude and the term "divine” still we see that he
deemphasizes ritual and communal aspects of religion. Etymologically, the word itself, 'religion'
comes from the Latin term 'religares', meaning binding together. Community, social groupings
of people with similar ideas are important for religion. The Actions, patterns, and practices that
are done as a result of individual’s beliefs about what is most crucial in life. This could be going
to Church, partaking of the Eucharist, going to Synagogue, practicing group meditation, or
participating in religious and philosophical group discussion; all of these construct a framework
and therefore cannot be underestimated in the role it plays within religion. Similarly, when James
uses the term "divine", this excludes Atheists and Dialectic Materialists from being under the
banner of religion, which I find problematic in many ways.

The definition of Schleiermacher though broad and experiential definition finds itself as
one of the central elements in religion, but like all definitions does not exhaust religion’s
entirety. It tends to deemphasize corporate religious experience and relegates his definition to
individual existential interaction with the divine. Likewise Schleiermacher’s definition leaves out
the ritual cultic actions of religious persons and their impact. Schleiermacher needed to dialogue
with Durkheim and Weber to find more of a balance between the personal and social elements,
which make up religion.

15
 The definitions of the prominent theologian like Rudolf Otto are not without deficiency.
What we see in Otto’s thought is the Kantian abandonment of the reaches and use of logic in
understanding theology. All of the concepts that Otto uses are employed to understand and
systematize some rational process in the minds of religious devotees, and so to deny the uses of
logic and rationality as a way of understanding religion is to miss one side of the coin. But at the
same time the Kant-Hegelian understanding of God keeping it too rational, beyond and a kind of
principle of order is also one sided. The definitions of the psychologists like Jungian though we
see a psychological processes within religion still some of his presuppositions and reductive
conclusions about the genesis of religion is not much satisfactory.

Check Your Progress III

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) Why does defining religion become a problem?

………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….

2) According to scholars of philosophy of religion what are the two problems from which
definitions of religion suffer from?

. ………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………...
……………………………………………………………………………………

16
 ……………………………………………………………………………………

3) What should be our outlook towards religion in our contemporary times?

………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………...
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………

2.6 LET US SUM UP

Therefore where is the wrong? Is it in the very defining of religion itself or in its reality?
Is it possible for any student of philosophy of religion to grasp the essence and characteristics of
religion without focusing in the paradigms of its definitions? So the conclusion that I would draw
is that, we have seen both the immense difficulty in defining religion as well as the intense
efforts of various scholars to do so. Although the task may seem to be in disarray, under further
investigation we come to discover the richness of understanding, the enormous amount of
religious vitality brought about through this task of definition. Though Religious scholars have a
keen way of disagreeing with definitions other than their own; they forget that the disagreement
lies within emphasis not within substance. Each definition is a piece of the whole, limited by
individual’s presuppositions and perspective fields of study. Yet when we analyze the definitions
throughout religious studies we can come to some sort of consensus of what religion truly is
about. It is apparent that religion can be seen as a theological, philosophical, anthropological,
sociological, and psychological phenomenon of human kind. To limit religion to only one of
these categories is to miss its multifaceted nature and lose out on the complete definition.

2.7 KEY WORDS

Numinous - refers to an intangible, unseen, but compelling reality that inspires both fascination
and dread.

17
Mysterium Tremendum - Tremendous Mystery

Worldview - A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and
the rest of the universe.

Religion/ Religious - When we speak of "a Religion", we are using the term to classify
something, and when we speak of "the Religious", we are seeking to capture those with some
distinguishable characteristics.

2.8 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Ambrosio, J. Introduction: Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and Other Writings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Dhammananda, K. Why Religion? Kuala Lumpur: The Buddhist Missionary Society, 1966.
Geertz, Clifford. Interpretation of Cultures. London: Fontana Press, 1844.
Harrison, Victoria S. “The Pragmatics of Defining Religion in a Multi-Cultural World”.
International Journal for Philosophy and Religion. Vol. 59, No. 3 June 2006.
Kevin J. Christiano, et al. Sociology of Religion: Contemporary Developments. 2nd ed. New
York Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008
Marx, Karl. Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. New
York: Fordham University Press, 1817.
Walsh, W. H. “Kant, Immanuel: Philosophy of Religion.” In: The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Vol. IV. Paul Edwards, ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. & The Free
Press, 1967.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Los Angeles: Roxbury
Company, 2002.

2.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I

1. The etymology of the English word ‘religion’ is said to have possibly emerged from its root
‘religio’ in Latin; ‘Religio’ literally means obligation, bond or reverence. It is also said to be

18
connected with the other following Latin terms: religare, relegere, relinquere. The original ‘re-
ligare’ would mean - to bind back, to tie tight/again and it indicates “a bond between man and
the gods”; ‘re-legere’ - to read again, or to remove/reduce, (say for example doubts) may express
“the scrupulous attention to all the signs and manifestations (omens) of invisible powers shown
in the early Roman religion”; and ‘re-linquere’ (to leave again/fully, to give up fully) might
mean the monastic life or the aspect of surrender, dependence, and faith expressed in religious
worship/life. But it is to the term (religare) that the etymology of the word religion is often
connected with perhaps to emphasize the ritualistic nature of religion.

2. It is true that many societies do not draw a clear line between their culture and what scholars
would call “religion.” This does not mean that religion doesn’t exist. Religion does exists, for it
is claimed that no human society has ever existed without religion, and would probably never
exist without it, and that the aesthetic experience in modernity is nothing but “the secularized rest
of and substitute for” an original religious experience.

Answers to Check your Progress II

1. The definition given in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy captures much of what religion is
across diverse cultures of the its comprehensive traits such as: Belief in supernatural beings
(gods) - A distinction between sacred and profane objects - Ritual acts focused on sacred objects
- A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods - Characteristically religious feelings (awe,
sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred
objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods - Prayer
and other forms of communication with gods - A worldview or a general picture of the world as
a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an
over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it - A
more or less total organization of one’s life based on the worldview - A social group bound
together by the above.

2. He defines religion in terms of "the Holy" (heilige), that is, the mysterious dread and wonder
conveyed by the idea of the Ultimate. "The Holy" to Otto is a way in which we understand the
aesthetic elements within religion, which emphasize beauty, truth, and goodness. This category

19
of interpretation stresses the great wonder and awe brought about through religion, as well as the
earnest moral desire to know and do the good.

3. For Kant, God does not focus primarily upon on what religious content and function this
concept may have for humans and their activity — e.g., how God may be an object of worship
etc., Their focus is more upon properly locating the concept of God within a systematically
ordered set of basic philosophical principles that account for the order and structure of world.
External ritual, superstition and hierarchical church order he sees all of these as efforts to make
oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral
rightness in the choice of one's actions. The idea of God for Kant is totally immanent within
human moral consciousness .For him religion is more intimately affiliated to the social moral
order.

4. Marx said, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and
the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Because it soothes them and dulls
their senses to the pain of oppression than for a reform.

5. Weber differed from Marx and Emile Durkheim in that he focused his work on the effects of
religious action and inaction. Instead of discussing religion as a kind of misapprehension (an
"opiate of the people,") or as social cohesion, Weber did not attempt to reduce religion to its
essence. Instead, he examines how religious ideas and groups interacted with other aspects of
social life. In doing so, Weber gives religion credit for shaping a person's image of the world,
and this image of the world can affect their view of their interests, and ultimately how they
decide to take action.

Answers to Check Your Progress III

1. The term ‘religion’ brings to mind different ideas for different people. Some consider it belief
in God or the act of praying or of participating in the ritual. Others understand it to be the act of
meditating on something divine, sacred, spiritual. Still others think that it has to do with
emotional and individual attitude to something beyond this world. There are some who simply
identify religion with morality. The way of studying the religious life of humanity depends to a

20
large extent on one’s experience with what one calls religious. Therefore it does not seem
possible to define religion comprehensively in a precise logical way.

2. The scholars of philosophy of religion see the definitions of religion tend to suffer from one
of two problems: they are either too narrow and exclude many belief systems which most agree
as religious, or they are too vague, wide, generic and ambiguous, suggesting that just about any
and everything is a religion.

3. Our outlook needs to be total and comprehensive for it is apparent that religion can be seen as
a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phenomenon of
human kind. But to limit religion to only one of these categories is to miss its multifaceted nature
and lose out on the complete definition.

21
UNIT 3 THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION -I

Contents

3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Naturalistic Origin of Religion
3.3 Anthropological Origin of Religion
3.4 Psychological Origin of Religion
3.5 Criticism
3.6 Social Origin of Religion
3.7 Sociopolitical Origin of Religion
3.8 Let Us Sum Up
3.9 Key Words
3.10 Further Readings and References
3.11 Answers to Check Your Progress

3.0. OBJECTIVES

The main objective is to see the different theories the origin of Religion from a non-faith
perspective. They all accept that people in almost all societies seem to believe in the existence of
invisible supernatural beings or God. These beings/being may influence human life for good or
ill and the people were advised to pray to these supernatural beings/being. Some of the thinkers
come to the conclusion that religion or God is the result of human fear or were created to give
people a feeling of security in an insecure world and the science has reached to a stage where it
can explain everything. Once human beings become scientifically enlightened they no longer
need a religion. Thus by the end of this Unit you should be able:

• to have a basic understanding of the view of Ernst Haeckel;

1
• to have an understanding of the anthropological origin of religion of Edward Burnett Tylor,
James George Frazer and Salomon Reinach;
• to have an understanding of the views of Sigmund Freud and James Henry Leuba on religon;
• to have an understanding of the theory of the sociopolitical origin of religion;
• to have an understanding of the theory of Emile Durkheim

3.1. INTRODUCTION

In the secular-based theories of the origin of religion the thinkers consider religion as an
empirical entity that can be traced historically and mapped geographically. All the religions are
human creations whose history is part of the wider history of human culture. They trace the
development of the concept of a religion as a clear and bounded historical phenomenon. There is
speculation that the first religions were a response to human fear. They were created to give
people a feeling of security in an insecure world, and a feeling of control over the environment
where there was little control. Here we shall deal with naturalistic, anthropological,
psychological, sociological and sociopolitical theories of the origin of religion.

3.2. NATURALISTIC ORIGIN OF RELIGION

From the Enlightenment onwards there have been attempts by skeptics to account for religion
naturalistically. Why do people in almost all societies seem to believe in the existence of
invisible supernatural beings that may influence human life for good or ill and whom it is
advisable to pray to or propitiate? And why have almost all societies developed rituals,
sometimes very elaborate and demanding in nature, in connection with such beliefs? In spite of
much speculation no generally agreed answers to such questions have emerged.

The pioneer of naturalistic theory of the origin of religion is Ernst Haeckel (1834 – 1919), a
scientist turned philosopher. He expressed his conviction that the discoveries of nineteenth
century science bring the solution of the enigmas which have perplexed mankind through the
centuries. He calls his system “monism” in opposition to all dualisms which differentiates God

2
and nature, soul and body, spirit and matter. There is only a single substance and it manifests
itself both as matter and energy or body and spirit. Every material atom has a rudimentary soul
which is far below the level of consciousness. In the course of evolution, the rudimentary
psychical character of substance gradually advances to consciousness, which according to him is
a purely natural phenomenon. Monism implies that there is no matter without spirit or energy,
and no spirit without matter.

This monism is founded on the demonstrable results of science and it solves the riddles of
existence. It gives negative answers to the traditional problems of God, freedom and immortality.
The ideas of God, freedom and immortality are based on a mistaken dualism. There can be no
God apart from the universe. An invisible God who thinks, speaks, and acts is an impossible
conception. In the monistic deterministic cosmos there is no room for the immortality of the soul
or the freedom of the will.

3.3. ANTHROPOLOGICAL ORIGIN OF RELIGION

The naturalistic interpretation of religion gained support from the developing science of
anthropology. The ideas of Edward Burnett Tylor (1832 – 1917), inspired other thinkers like
James George Frazer (1854 – 1941) and Salomon Reinach (1858 – 1932) to formulate the
anthropological theory of the origin of religion. Tylor makes two assumptions. (1) human culture
– including knowledge, art, religion, customs and the like – has its laws which can be studied
scientifically. Like in nature, in culture too we can find the uniform action of uniform causes. (2)
the various grades of culture found in the human race can be exhibited as stages in a process of
development or evolution. Another idea to which he draws our attention is the phenomenon of
‘survival’. An idea or a custom, once it has got established, tends to persist, and it may continue
on into later stages of culture where it has become meaningless.

His main contribution was his theory of “animism’ i.e. the belief in spiritual beings. Confronted
with the phenomena such as death, sleep, dreams etc., primitive man accounted for them in terms
of a spirit separable from the body. He believed in other spirits throughout all nature, some of
these spirits having the rank of powerful deities. Since these spirits were supposed to control

3
events and to affect human lives, it was natural that men should revere them and seek to
propitiate them. According to him here we have the beginnings of religion, with the belief in
spiritual beings as its minimal condition. The higher religions have developed out of the matrix
of primitive animism. The superiority of the higher religions consists in their moral ideas, which
are almost entirely lacking in primitive religion and these moral ideas have turned out to be the
abiding fruit of animism.

According to James George Frazer we can distinguish three stages in the mental development of
mankind magic, religion and science and each of these do not follow one another in a clear-cut
succession. At the magical level man depends on his own strength to overcome the difficulties
that trouble him in his attempt to gain the ends. He believes that there exists a certain order of
nature which he thinks he can learn and manipulate by occult means. But experience teaches him
that he is mistaken and there he turns to religion. In religion man no longer relies on himself but
seeks the help of invisible beings. He believes that these beings possess that power to control
natural events which magic failed to gain. The religious attitude supposes that there is some
elasticity in the course of nature, but experience teaches man that man is mistaken again. The
rigid uniformity of nature is discovered, and religion, regarded as an explanation of nature, is
displaced by science. In science man reverts to the self-reliance but not through occult means but
by through the rational methods.

Salomon Reinach, who was an archaeologist and an anthropologist largely devoted to the
investigation of religion. For him this is the apt time for a science of religion. Every where, even
in religion, secular reason must exercise its right to investigate. He wanted to show religion as a
natural phenomenon. He defines religion as a sum of scruples which hinder the free exercise of
our faculties. With this definition he wanted to eliminate from religion the concept of God,
spiritual beings, and the infinite. These scruples have arisen from the irrational taboos of
primitive societies where they were associated with an animistic view of the world. Those
scruples which have proved useful have persisted, and have tended to be transformed into
rational rules of conduct and those which have shown no such usefulness have sunk into the
background. Thus human progress has taken place through the gradual secularizing of elements
which were originally all enveloped in the sphere of animistic beliefs. This process has taken

4
place not only in the transformation of taboos into moral rules but also in the development of
science out of magic. Religion was the very life of nascent societies, and out of it has come our
civilizations. He visualizes further progress in the direction of education and the extension of the
rational outlook.

Check your progress

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) Explain about the naturalistic theory of the origin of religion according to Ernst
Haeckel
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) What are the three stages described by George Frazer in the mental development of
mankind?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………….

3.4. PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIGIN OF RELIGION

The naturalistic interpretation of religion received further stimulus from the development of the
psychology of religion. The main proponent of this theory is Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939). But

5
we shall also study the view of James Henry Leuba (1867 – 1946) since he is considered as the
pioneer of this theory.

According to Leuba the reason for the existence of religion is not the objective truth of its
conceptions, but its biological value. He clarifies this idea with the example of the belief in a
personal God. Earlier time theologians had put forward metaphysical arguments for the existence
of such a God for example the argument from design. The progress of the physical sciences has
destroyed the strength of such arguments. Now the theologians have changed their arguments:
they appeal to inner experience. Here, thinks Leuba, they have to agree with psychology, which
applies the scientific method into the inmost experiences of the soul. The inner experience
instead of establishing the existence of a personal God show how belief in such a God has arisen
from the gratification it provides for affective and moral needs. He pays special attention to
mystical experience which is considered as the pinnacle of religious experience of God. He tires
to explain it in psychological and physiological terms. It is like a sublimation of sexual passion
in the ascetical life: it is a state of consciousness induced by certain drugs. It has affinity with
such pathological conditions as hysteria and epilepsy. For the psychologist who remains within
the province of science, religious mysticism is not the revelation of God but of man. Human
being can no longer endorse with intellectual honesty to a religion with its transcendent beliefs.

Sigmund Freud, the originator of psychoanalysis, regarded religious beliefs as illusions,

fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most insistent wishes of mankind. He considered
religion as a mental defense against the more threatening aspects of nature – earthquake, flood
storm, disease and inevitable death. With these forces nature rises up against us, majestic, cruel
and inexorable. However, human imagination transforms these forces into mysterious personal
powers. Impersonal forces remain eternally remote. But if the elements have passions that rage
as they do in our souls, if everywhere in nature there are beings around us of a kind that we know
in our own society, then we can breathe freely, can feel at home in the uncanny and can deal by
psychical means with our senseless anxiety. We are still defenseless but we are no longer
helplessly paralyzed. We can at least react. We can apply the same methods against these violent
supermen outside that we employ in our own society. We can try to adjure them, to appease them
to bribe them, and, by so influencing them, we may rob them of part of their power.

6
Freud divides the mind into three provinces; Id, Ego and Superego. Id is the unconscious region
in which the basic instincts of our nature crowd together with no sense of order or value. Ego is
the region in which contact with the external world is maintained and it aims at self-preservation,
selecting some of the Id’s demands for satisfaction and rejecting others, according to
circumstances. Superego is the deposit of the parental influences of childhood, exercises a
further control by banning those activities which are socially undesirable. We come to know
about the consciousness through the analysis of its disguised manifestations. It contains primal
instincts or drives and repressed experiences. These repressed still live on in the unconscious and
they manifest in many varied ways. These manifestations are neuroses and Freud thinks that
religion is the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity which may be left behind when at last
men learn to fact the world relying no longer upon illusions but upon scientifically authenticated
knowledge.

Freud applies the idea of Oedipus complex (the Greek tragic hero who murdered his father and
married his mother) to the origin of religion. He supposes that the primitive times human beings
lived in small groups, each under the domination of a father who possessed all the females. The
sons where driven out or killed as they excited the father’s jealousy. But they grouped together
and killed the father, and partook of his flesh so as to share in his power. This was the primal
crime, the parricide that has set up tensions within the human psyche out of which have
developed moral inhibitions, totemism, and the other phenomena of religion. Having slain their
father, the brothers are struck with remorse, at least of a prudential kind. They also find that they
cannot all succeed to his position and that there is a continuing need for restraint. The dead
father’s prohibition accordingly takes on a new (moral) authority as a taboo against incest. This
association of religion with the Oedipus complex, which is renewed in each individual, is held to
account for the mysterious authority of God in the human mind and the powerful guilt feelings
which make men submit to such a phantasy. Religion is thus the return of the repressed. The idea
of God is the magnified version of the image of the human father. The transformation of the
father into God takes place both in the history of the race and in the history of individuals.
Individuals in adult life project upon the world the infantile memory of the father, and raise this

7
image to the rank of a Father God. The father who gave them life, projected them, and demanded
their obedience, becomes the God who is similarly creator, preserver, and lawgiver.

Through this what he wants to emphasize is that a religious belief is determined by the
psychological history of the person who holds it, and that such a belief is essentially infantile and
neurotic. It is a projection of the nursery upon the world, and is thus a flight from reality. In the
real world which is rigidly determined atheistic cosmos there is no Father God who reigns over
it.

3.5. CRITICISM

The naturalists, anthropologists and psychologists whom we have considered do have something
to suggest in their interpretation of religion. The strength of their claim rests on the claim that it
is based on verifiable facts brought to light by scientific investigation. However a thorough
examination of this claim shows to us that these claims are extremely shaky one. The facts must
be interpreted and that almost all the thinkers whom we have considered were scientists of one
kind or another by training. In so far as they move from the findings of their particular sciences
into the sphere of philosophical interpretation introduced presuppositions, speculations and even
prejudices which need to be brought into the open and examined.

The major criticism of naturalism is that it involves us in a gigantic one-sided abstraction. It

takes a segment of reality and represents it as the entire reality. Just as they isolate the cognitive
aspect of our experience of the world, so they concentrate on the element of belief in religion.
They too seem to think of religious beliefs as offering an explanation of the world but these
beliefs can be understood only in the setting on the whole religious life, which involves conative
and affective elements as well. Some of the thinkers’ idea of God illustrates their own
misunderstanding of the idea of God. The abstract idea presented by the naturalists as the whole
reality ignores some facts and exaggerates others, so giving a distorted picture.

We must remember that the origin of particular belief or practice does not determine the question
of its validity in its present form. Any human activity goes back to humble beginnings. But this

8
point is not remembered in the case of religion. We must judge things by what they are today,
not by what they have grown out of it. Something derived from a cruder origin may have
acquired quite a new status and meaning.

The psychology is a most valuable study, but it does not and indeed cannot be determinative for
the validity of religion. We tend to believe what we want to believe. Yet psychological criticism
of belief can be carried only so far or it ends up in skepticism which engulfs the psychologists
himself, and makes rational arguments impossible. Freud by tracing the history of the idea of
God in the projecting of the father figure, he discredits belief in God. But his theory is not
applicable to religion in general. But only to those religions which recognize some kind of
‘Father God’. Even if men think of God in terms of father figure, they use it in the analogical
language. The question whether this analogue stands for any reality, or if it does so, worthily
represents it, is one which the psychoanalysis fails to give an answer.

Freud’s ideas of religion never had any considerable degree of acceptance. Usually neurosis is
defined as a condition leading to difficulty in adjusting satisfactorily to one’s environment. Thus
neurosis brings negative outcome. Jung says that religion is a healthy outcome as an alternative
to neurosis. Religious practices seem to be a desirable, justifiable or realistic mode of activity.
Freud says religion is a form of neurosis. It means there can be good neurosis and bad neurosis.
The fact that religion relieves individual from unconscious conflict is not a sufficient reason to
label religion as the universal obsessional neurosis of mankind.

No one has shown that in general religious believers are less able to establish satisfying personal
relations and less ale to get ahead in their work than non-believers.

Freud commits the fallacy of psycho-mechanistic parallelism. This is the fallacy of assuming that
because two behaviour patterns are observed to exhibit that same constituents or are reducible to
the same component elements, they are to be attributed to the same psychological mechanism.
Religious beliefs display some marks of infantile regression. From this one cannot conclude that
religion is reducible to infantile regression similarity is not sameness.

9
There is no sure proof for Oedipus complex. There is no evidence that children before puberty
have sexual desires.
The word “illusion” does not mean absence of an objective reality. Illusion is only a perceptual
error. Illusion is resulted from a presence not from an absence. It cannot amount to mean that
God does not exist

3.6. SOCIAL ORIGIN OF RELIGION

In the work of Emile Durkheim (1858 – 1917) the theory of the origin of religion gets a
sociological slant. His views make not just a sociological theory but it is a complete philosophy,
known as ‘sociological positivism’. In his philosophy the idea of society occupies the centre
position and functions as the key for understanding philosophical problems. Truth and falsehood
are objective in so far as they express collective and not individual thought. Even the laws of
logic reflect the needs of civilized society. Society is not just the sum of the individuals included
in it, but a peculiar kind of entity which is the source of constraints governing the thought and
behavior of its members.

In his social philosophy Durkhiem devoted special attention to the subject of religion. According
to him the character of primitive religion is best seen not in animism but totemism, which he
considers as more fundamental and primitive form of religion. The totem stands in a peculiar
relationship to a particular social group, normally a tribe or clan. The totem is for this group the
type of the sacred and the basis for the distinction of sacred and profane and this he takes to be
essence of religion.

Taking totemism as the type of religion he concludes that religion is to be understood as a social
phenomenon. Religion serves the needs of the society in which it is practiced, and the object of
its cult, concealed under the figures of its particular mythology, is the society itself. He points
out that the earlier theories of primitive religion suffered from the defect of a one-sided
concentration upon religious belief; where as his own theory regards religion primarily from the
point of view of action. So he can claim that there is something eternal in religion, for although

10
particular beliefs become outworn, any society must from time to time reaffirm itself, and such
reaffirmation is essentially religious.

Religion and society are so closely interwoven that religion is regarded as the matrix out of
which other human activities, including science, have grown. Religion is by no means
discredited by science, but it must always be looking for more adequate symbols in order to
express its realities. In modern times we have come to understand that the ideas of divinity and
of society are at bottom the same. So far no new religion of humanity has displaced the
traditional religion, but this may happen in due course. There are no gospels which are immortal,
but neither is there any reason for believing that humanity is incapable of inventing new ones.
Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1). How does Freud apply the idea of Oedipus complex to explain the origin of religion?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………..

2) Explain the sociological positivism of Emile Durkheim

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………….

3.7. SOCIOPOLITICAL ORIGIN OF RELIGION

Here we shall see mainly the thoughts of Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx.

11
God was Feuerbach’s first thought: the young Feuerbach was a theologian. He was studying
theology to become a protestant pastor but from the standpoint of a rational religiosity. Reason
was his second thought: the theologian became a Hegelian. Oscillating between philosophy and
theology and inwardly torn apart, longing for truth he came to Hegel’s lectures. Hegel put him
right in head and heart and made him see in a unique way what a teacher is. Feuerbach said “I
knew what I ought to do and wanted to do: not theology but philosophy. Not to believe, but to
think”. Man was Feuerbach’s third and last thought. The Hegelian becomes an atheist. He wants
to follow Hegel’s path consistently to the very end. The old split between here and hereafter
must be removed, not only as with Hegel-in thought but in reality, so that humanity can again
concentrate wholeheartedly on itself, on its world and on the present time. In his “Essence of
Christianity” he enthroned materialism and dethroned God. He said that apart from nature and
man nothing exists and the higher beings produced by our religious imaginations are merely the
weird reflections of our own nature. He was against the idea of a personal God and selfish belief
in immortality.

To Feuerbah, consciousness of God is self-consciousness and knowledge of God is self-

knowledge. Religion is man’s earliest and also indirect form of self-knowledge. The universal
man, the community and unity of man with man-the human species is the Supreme Being and the
measure of all things. The consciousness of the infinite is nothing else than the consciousness of
the infinity of consciousness. In the consciousness of the infinite, the conscious subject has for
his object the infinity of his own nature. Thus the notion of God merges. Man sets up his human
nature out of himself. He sees it as something existing outside himself and separated from
himself. He projects it.

In short the notion of God is nothing but a projection of man. The absolute to man is his own
nature. The power of the object over his is therefore, the power of his own nature. God appears
as a projected, hypostatized reflection of man, behind which nothing exists in reality. The divine
is the universality of the human, projected into the hereafter. The attributes of God are –love,
wisdom, justice etc., in reality these are the attributes of man – of the human species.

12
The personal God of Christianity, independent and existing outside man, is nothing other than
the specific notion of man given independent existence-the personified nature of man. Man
contemplates his nature as eternal to himself. The attributes of God are really the attributes of
objectified nature of man. It is not that God created man in his own image, but man created God
in his own image. Man is a great projector and God is the great projection. God as intellectual
being is a projection of human understanding. Here God is nothing but the objectified universal
nature of human intelligence. God is love also is a projection of human heart. God is nothing but
the objectified universal nature of human love. God is not love but love is God. Human love is
supreme, absolute power and truth. In prayer man worships his own nature, venerates the
omnipotence of feelings. My own interest is declared as God’s interest. My own will is God’s
will. My own ultimate purpose is God’s purpose.

Marx maintained a negative attitude towards religion. The basis of it was not speculative
arguments for the non-existence of god. He found religion incompatible with his theory of
action. Therefore he rejected religion. Marx inherited speculative atheism from Feuerbach. Marx
was an atheist, even before he developed his theory of action.

Feuerbach’s atheism was rooted in a speculative theory of man. According to him all the
predicates attributed to god are purely human. Therefore he said that the subject of these
predicates should also be human. Thus man is his own god. Man simply projects his own infinite
powers on to a transcendent being. God is an alienation of man. It is a self-estrangement.
Feuerbach did not explain satisfactorily the origin of this alienation. The reasons he said are
individual’s love of ease, sloth vanity and egoism. These are not very serious reasons to account
for alienation.

According to Marx man exists as an alienated being. Marx points to the social and economic
conditions of modern life as the cause of his alienation. Religion is only its expression. As a
result of the division of labor, the means of production have become the private property of
individuals; the workers in the modern industrialized and technicized process of production have
nothing but their sheer labor – a commodity –to offer. In the process of exchange, the product of
their own labor becomes for wage earners an alienated, commodity; something separated from

13
them. As man is frustrated in his earthly existence, he takes refuge in the phantasy world of the
beyond. The culprit of maintaining these frustrating conditions is not religion, but the political
structure which legalizes and protects the social status quo. Yet neither the state nor the religion
reveals the root of alienation. State and religion lie in the economic conditions of a society
determined by private property. Religious alienation will be abolished only when relations
between human beings again become intelligible and reasonable as a result of new modes of
production.

Marx’s former friend Bruno Bauer proposed that the emancipation of man requires a secular
state which recognizes no religion. Existence of religion always indicates an incomplete
emancipation. However Marx saw that even though America state is entirely separated from the
church, instead of fully emancipated, America is a religious country par excellence. Religion is
not only an expression of alienation, but also a protest against it. Religion is an inverted world
consciousness; inverted, unjust, inhuman society produces man’s religious consciousness.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed. It is the heart of the heartless people. It is the spirit of the
spiritless situation. Religion is the opium of the people. Religion offers illusory happiness. For
real happiness the abolition of religion is a must. Religion is a symptom of social disease.

Atheism alone is insufficient to cure the ills of the human situation. It only attempts to cure the
symptoms without eradicating the disease. The disease is man’s social-economic condition in
capital society. The social structure of private property produces the need for God. So it has to be
eradicated. To the orthodox Marxism, atheism is very important. Atheism is the annulment of
God. It is the theoretical humanism. Annulment of private property is communism. It vindicates
real human life. It is practical humanism.

Atheism and communism re-establishes true relationship between man and nature. This
relationship is an active one - a praxis. To be human is not to be something, but to do something
work and material production constitutes man’s fulfillment, not leisure. Re-establishing the true
relationship between, man and nature is attained through praxis. Praxis relates nature and
consciousness - the two poles of human reality. The only true philosophy is a theory of action.

14
The truth of man is in what he does, not in what he knows or claims to know without his active
relation to nature.

From a Marxist point of view religious belief always conflicts with a truly humanistic attitude
because religion always projects beyond the human. Man becomes independent only, if he is his
mater. Man is his master when he owes his existence to himself. A man who lives by the favour
of another considers himself a dependent being. Marx’s atheism is humanism, mediated with
itself through the suppression of religion and communism is humanism mediated with itself
through the suppression of private property. Humanism does not consist of abstract postulates. It
is to be realized historically in a human society; truly human conditions are to be created. There
must be no longer a society where great mass of human beings are degraded, despised and
exploited.

Marx remained an atheist because he thought the myth of the deity was an obstacle to the
rehabilitation of the poor and an impediment to complete happiness by stressing the joy of the
beyond diverting attention from the suffering here on earth. Thus religious beliefs are totally
incompatible with the philosophy of Marx.

Check Your Progress III

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1). Why are the religious beliefs totally incompatible with the philosophy of Marx?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………

3.8. LET US SUM UP

15
It is evident from these theories that religion is always deeply intertwined with numerous social
factors, and that no account of religion which omitted the sociological aspect could be complete.
But apart from this rather obvious truth, we get no clear guidance, for there are many serious
conflicts among the views we have seen. We have not been given any single convincing answer
to the question of what precisely is the relation of a religion to the society in which it is practised.
Can religious beliefs play a major part in giving rise to an economic system? Does the economic
system give rise to religion as a kind of by-product?

Durkheim recognizes religion as a social activity. In doing so he supplements a deficiency in

some of the earlier anthropological accounts, which had concentrated on religious beliefs. But
his general thesis derives its plausibility from the key place which he gives to totemism as the
type of religion, and totemism simply will not fulfill this role. The reasons are: (1) totemism is
not really primitive – it has, as Freud recognized, a history of more primitive ideas behind it. (2)
Totemism is much less universal than religion, and cannot serve as the type of all religion. It is
significant that it is precisely among some of the most backward people that totemism is absent.
(3) Most researchers now recognize totemism as being primarily not a religious phenomenon but
a social one. When the foundation stone of totemism is withdrawn, Durkheim’s argument for the
identity of the ideas of divinity and society collapses.

Feuerbach says that religion is consciousness of the infinite. Thus it is and can be nothing else
than the consciousness which man has of his own not finite and limited but infinite nature. Here
he implies something about the non-existence of an infinite, independent of our consciousness.
Feuerbach continually asserted it but never proved it. Here he presents only our orientation of
human consciousness toward an infinite. It does not provide any evidence of the existence or on
existence of an infinite reality, independent of consciousness.

His universal human being is itself a projection. It is an abstraction. He projects something out of
his existence that does not exist in reality.

16
It is true that nothing exists merely because we wish it. But it is not true that something cannot
exist, if we wish it.

Marx’s praxis has only economic character. For Max, man is autonomous only in his material
life process. Thus Marx’s praxis is restricted.

Is religion opium of the people? We have to verify it in practice. We have to probe the history of
communism to see whether religion or communism is the opium of the people.

If religion emerges our to social conditions in which man is a wretched and enslaved being, then
religion must die out automatically, when the ideal conditions are created, in which all man can
he happy. In this case the communist states need to go against any religion.

3.9 KEY WORDS

Praxis: Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is practiced. It is a practical and
applied knowledge to one’s actions.

Totemism: Totemism is a religious belief that is frequently associated with shamanistic

religions. The totem is usually an animal or other natural figure that spiritually represents a group
of related people such as a clan.

3.10. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Allen N.J., Pickering W.S.F. & Miller Watts, eds. Watts On Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of
Religious Life. Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought, 10. London:
Routledge, 1998.
Gay, Peter, ed. The Freud: Reader. United States of America. W. W. Norton & com. 1989.
Hick, John. Philosophy of Religion. Second edition. New Jersey: Prentice-hall, 1973.

17
James, Henry Leuba. A Psychological Study of Religion: Its Origin, Function and Future.
Norwood, Mass: Berwick & Smith, 1912.
Lodge, Oliver, Sir. Life and Matter: A Criticism of Prof. Haeckel’s Riddle of the Universe.
New York: The Knickerbockers Press, 2006.
Stark, Rodney. Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007

3.11. ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I

1). A scientist turned philosopher Ernst Haeckel expressed his conviction that the
discoveries of nineteenth century science bring the solution of the enigmas which have
perplexed mankind through the centuries. He calls his system “monism” in opposition to
all dualisms which differentiates God and nature, soul and body, spirit and matter. There
is only a single substance and it manifests itself both as matter and energy or body and
spirit. Every material atom has a rudimentary soul which is far below the level of
consciousness. In the course of evolution, the rudimentary psychical character of
substance gradually advances to consciousness, which according to him is a purely
natural phenomenon. Monism implies that there is no matter without spirit or energy, and
no spirit without matter. This monism is founded on the demonstrable results of science
and it solves the riddles of existence. It gives negative answers to the traditional problems
of God, freedom and immortality. The ideas of God, freedom and immortality are based
on a mistaken dualism. There can be no God apart from the universe. An invisible God
who thinks, speaks, and acts is an impossible conception. In the monistic deterministic
cosmos there is no room for the immortality of the soul or the freedom of the will

2). The three stages in the mental development of mankind magic, religion and science
and each of these do not follow one another in a clear-cut succession. At the magical
level man depends on his own strength to overcome the difficulties that trouble him in his

18
 attempt to gain the ends. He believes that there exists a certain order of nature which he
thinks he can learn and manipulate by occult means. But experience teaches him that he
is mistaken and there he turns to religion. In religion man no longer relies on himself but
seeks the help of invisible beings. He believes that these beings possess that power to
control natural events which magic failed to gain. The religious attitude supposes that
there is some elasticity in the course of nature, but experience teaches man that man is
mistaken again. The rigid uniformity of nature is discovered, and religion, regarded as an
explanation of nature, is displaced by science. In science man reverts to the self-reliance
but not through occult means but by through the rational methods.

Answers to Check Your Progress II

1) Freud applies the idea of Oedipus complex to the origin of religion. He supposes that
the primitive times human beings lived in small groups, each under the domination of a
father who possessed all the females. The sons where driven out or killed as they excited
the father’s jealousy. But they grouped together and killed the father, and partook of his
flesh so as to share in his power. This was the primal crime, the parricide that has set up
tensions within the human psyche out of which have developed moral inhibitions,
totemism, and the other phenomena of religion. Having slain their father, the brothers are
struck with remorse, at least of a prudential kind. They also find that they cannot all
succeed to his position and that there is a continuing need for restraint. The dead father’s
prohibition accordingly takes on a new (moral) authority as a taboo against incest. This
association of religion with the Oedipus complex, which is renewed in each individual, is
held to account for the mysterious authority of God in the human mind and the powerful
guilt feelings which make men submit to such a phantasy. Religion is thus the return of
the repressed. The idea of God is the magnified version of the image of the human father.
The transformation of the father into God takes place both in the history of the race and
in the history of individuals. Individuals in adult life project upon the world the infantile
memory of the father, and raise this image to the rank of a Father God. The father who
gave them life, projected them, and demanded their obedience, becomes the God who is
similarly creator, preserver, and lawgiver.

19
 2) In his philosophy the idea of society occupies the centre position and functions as the
key for understanding philosophical problems. Truth and falsehood are objective in so far
as they express collective and not individual thought. Even the laws of logic reflect the
needs of civilized society. Society is not just the sum of the individuals included in it, but
a peculiar kind of entity which is the source of constraints governing the thought and
behavior of its members. In his social philosophy Durkhiem devoted special attention to
the subject of religion. According to him the character of primitive religion is best seen
not in animism but totemism, which he considers as more fundamental and primitive
form of religion. The totem stands in a peculiar relationship to a particular social group,
normally a tribe or clan. The totem is for this group the type of the sacred and the basis
for the distinction of sacred and profane and this he takes to be essence of religion.

Answers to Check Your Progress III

1) For Marx religion is an inverted world consciousness; inverted, unjust, inhuman

society produces man’s religious consciousness. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed. It
is the heart of the heartless people. It is the spirit of the spiritless situation. Religion is the
opium of the people. Religion offers illusory happiness. For real happiness the abolition
of religion is a must. Religion is a symptom of social disease. From a Marxist point of
view religious belief always conflicts with a truly humanistic attitude because religion
always projects beyond the human. Man becomes independent only, if he is his master.
Man is his master when he owes his existence to himself. A man who lives by the favour
of another considers himself a dependent being. Marx’s atheism is humanism, mediated
with itself through the suppression of religion and communism is humanism mediated
with itself through the suppression of private property. Humanism does not consist of
abstract postulates. It is to be realized historically in a human society; truly human
conditions are to be created. There must be no longer a society where great mass of
human beings are degraded, despised and exploited. Marx remained an atheist because he
thought the myth of the deity was an obstacle to the rehabilitation of the poor and an
impediment to complete happiness by stressing the joy of the beyond diverting attention

20
from the suffering here on earth. Thus religious beliefs are totally incompatible with the
philosophy of Marx.

21
UNIT 4 THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION -II

Contents

4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Primitive Religious Consciousness
4.3 The Experience of the Holy
4.4 Critical Remarks
4.5 Let Us Sum Up
4.6 Key Words
4.7 Further Readings and References
4.8 Answers to Check Your Progress

4.0. OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this Unit is to describe the main features of the religious consciousness as
found in the experience of the religious persons. In spite of the secularism that has influenced so
many, religious thought continues to be vigorous. It gives every sign that it will not cease to be
so. Very many thinkers consider man as an unfinished product. As an unfinished product
continuously he is going out beyond himself. He is a being who carries within himself some
clues to the meaning of transcendence and mystery. Here we will study about the primitive
religious consciousness as found in the theory of Robert Ranulph Marett and the description of
the experience of holy found in the thought of Schleiermacher and Otto. And finally, a critical
evaluation of their thinking.
Thus by the end of this Unit you should be able:
• to have a basic understanding of philosophy of Marett;
• to have an understanding of the phenomenological description of human beings’ experience of
holy according to the thought of Schleiermacher;

1
• to have an understanding of the theory of numinous feeling and its relation of the experience of
holy.

4.1. INTRODUCTION

The group of thinkers that we are going to see in this unit try to explore and describe the main
features of the religious consciousness as found in the experience of the religious persons. It may
look to be similar to the psychologies of religion we have already seen in the previous unit but it
differs itself from them in leaving aside their naturalistic presuppositions and in interesting itself
more in the description of religious attitudes than in the genesis of religious belief. This approach
is differentiated by its contemplative attitude from the pragmatic and activist account of religion.

We shall begin by examining the description of the primitive religious consciousness as

explained by R.R. Marett and then we shall turn to Rudolf Otto’s classic exposition of man’s
experience of holy.

4.2. THE PRIMITIVE RELIGIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS

Robert Ranulph Marett (1866 – 1943), an English anthropologist gives a new direction to the
study of primitive religion. He declared his opposition to naturalism and speculative idealism.
Hence what he offers us is neither naturalistic nor metaphysical explanation of the origin of
religion. He tires not so much to explain but to describe. He concentrated his attention on the
psychological analysis or rudimentary religion. His aim is to translate a type of religious
experience remote from our own into such terms of our consciousness.

The idea of Mana is the central theme of his description. This word takes its origin in the Pacific
region. But the idea for which it stands is said to be wide spread among primitive peoples.
Generally this word has come to be applied to a certain type of religious experience. What do we
mean by Mana? To explain the meaning of this word Maret obtains the help of an English
Missionary, Bishop R.H. Codrington and he describes Mana as a force altogether distinct from
physical power, which acts in all kinds of ways for good and evil. It is a kind of occult power.
This occult force is supposed to attach to a wide range of natural objects and persons. To this

2
force is attributed the success in war, prosperity in agriculture, powers in hunting etc. Mana
negatively seen is taboo. That which possesses mana is taboo. This means mana is not to be
lightly approached or else its power break forth in a harmful and destructive manner.

He next searches into the mentality of the people among whom Mana is found. What lies behind
mana is not so much an idea but an emotional attitude. It is true that such an attitude contain
elements which may become eventually conceptualized. “Savage religion” is not always so much
rationalized but always danced out. It develops under conditions which favour emotional and
motor processes and the process of making it into ideas remains relatively in absence. It is on this
point that Marett takes the issue with primitive animism. According to him the problems with
some of the religious philosophers are, that they when interpreting primitive religion, gives too
much emphasis to the intellectual matter. They treat primitive religion as if it were primarily a
matter of belief. They set out to examine the intellectual side of primitive religion. But the belief
aspect of the primitive religion is very closely associated with powerful affective states. This
may be because there is a phase in which feeling predominates over thought or thought and
reflection have not yet emerged from feeling.

Marett thinks that of all English words “awe” is the one that expresses the fundamental religious
feelings most nearly. What constitutes the core of the primitive religious consciousness is
nothing other than awe. He describes awe as human being’s reaction to the hidden mysterious
forces of its environment. It cannot be merely interpreted as fear of the unknown. It is much
more than fear. Viewing from this point we can say that religion does not originate just in fear of
the unknown. The essential constituents of awe are wonder, admiration, respect, even love.

Mana is in itself non-moral but it can act for good and evil. It is a kind of undifferentiated
magico-religious matrix, from which both religion and magic take their rise. The religious
development takes place in the moralizing and spiritualizing of the primitive experience which
already contains in itself the seeds of more refined feelings, reverence, love, humility and the
like. It also includes the possibility for intellectual development through reflection. Religion is a
permanent possibility of the human spirit. The religion in all its variations will retain as its basic
structure something similar to that attitude of awe.

3
Check Your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) What does Marett mean by Mana?

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) What constitutes the core of primitive religious consciousness?
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

4.3. THE EXPERIENCE OF THE HOLY

In this section we are going to deal with thought of Rudolf Otto (1869 – 1937) who gives a
masterly phenomenological analysis of the religious consciousness. Edmund Husserl, the father
of phenomenology, himself praised Otto for applying phenomenological method in the analysis
of the religious consciousness. He was a great admirer of Schleiermacher (1768 –1834) for the
rediscovery of religion.

FRIEDRICH DANIEL ERNST SCHLEIERMACHER AND THE THEORY OF

CONSCIOUSNESS

He is considered as the greatest theologian/philosopher of the nineteenth century and found the
essence of religion in a sense and taste for the infinite or in the feeling of the absolute
dependence. The words like feeling, sense, and taste should not be understood in the sense of a
just a blind stirring. But it is an emotionally coloured attitude or state of mind which carries in

4
itself some kind of implicit understanding. He makes a distinction between doctrine and religion.
Doctrine is not the same as the religion. Through the doctrine what is implicit in the religious
affections is made explicit through reflection. His theory is often called as the theory of
consciousness.

A human person is composed of mind and body and individuated by time and space. But
according to him the person as the subject of the activities of thinking/knowing and of
willing/doing is more than a being composed of mind and body. A person is differentiated from
others by nature and history. He inwardly differentiates himself and acknowledges such an
inward differentiation in all other human beings. That by virtue of which the human person
makes this inward differentiation is the particular property of the person. It is this property in
each man that equips him with a life unity, an inalienable identity. He describes this property as
the peculiar organization that reason assumes for itself in each man. But the life unity, or
identity, of the individual person can never come to direct and full expression either in
thinking/knowing or in willing/doing, although it accompanies and informs each of these rational
activities. The self-consciousness that this sense of identity requires is a self-consciousness to be
distinguished from the forms of self-consciousness in which the subject is responding to or
acting upon external objects. He appropriates the word feeling for this form of self-
consciousness. The content of which is the given identity and unity of the self. Feeling, thinking,
and doing make up the three forms of consciousness that constitute the self-consciousness which
distinguishes persons. Every person must be seen as a participant in the life of society in both his
practical and theoretical functions but at the same time he is also one whose particular property is
wholly original. A person in whom feeling of self-consciousness remains latent, personal identity
is deficient and personal consciousness is confused or immature. Such a person fails to
contribute to the common or highest good. He is a person in the formal sense but is destitute of
spiritual life. For him religion is the most highly and fully developed mode of the feeling form of
self-consciousness.

For him religion is a determination of feeling. It is a feeling of being absolutely dependent. This
feeling is one and the same thing with consciousness of being in relation with God. To
understand his point of view, we need to distinguish the following elements.

5
 01. The feeling of being absolutely dependent is also the feeling of identity through which
the individual is conscious of his inner uniqueness. In describing this feeling as one of
being absolutely dependent he was calling attention to the fact that the identity, or life
unity of the individual is an endowment which cannot be derived from any of the
intellectual or volitional relations in which the self stands to other persons and forces
either alone or together. In this sense the individual is utterly dependent for the particular
constitution of his existence on a “power” that cannot be fully explained conceptually.
The feeling of absolute dependence is not because of any felt deficiency.

02. The feeling of being absolutely dependent or God consciousness, as he calls it, is
discernible only because self-consciousness also involves thinking and willing, which are
forms of rational relation between the person and his world, forms involving
consciousness of relative dependence and relative freedom. He distinguishes the feeling
of being absolutely dependent from the feeling of relative dependence. In the latter a
person stands in the relations of community and reciprocity with nature and society while
in the former there is no reciprocity present. Therefore there can be no consciousness of
being in relation to God apart from consciousness of being in relation to the world.

03. The original meaning of the word “God” is not a concept of perfect being but the felt
relation of absolute dependence. Therefore religion arises not in ideas, in willing, but in
the immediate consciousness of an immediate existence-relationship. Religion is more
than a determination of feeling. It is the name given to the personal self-consciousness in
which the feeling of absolute dependence and consciousness of the world coexist and
must achieve a living, stable order.

Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

6
01. What is the source of religion according to the philosophy of Schleiermacher?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

RUDOLF OTTO AND THE EXPERIENCE OF HOLY

Otto in his book The Idea of Holy gives a classical exposition of the experience of Holy. In this
exposition he makes use of the phenomenological method which is developed by Edmund
Husserl (1859 – 1938). Husserl praises Otto for having made a masterly phenomenological
analysis of the religious consciousness. Though he and Husserl were colleagues at Gottingen,
Otto seems to have worked independently, and makes no explicit reference to Husserl’s method.
Hence Otto is in his own right a religious thinker of first-class importance and he is stated to the
most illuminating religious thinker of modern times.

RELIGIOUS FEELING AND RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE

His most significant contribution is to be found in his discussion of religious feeling and
religious knowledge. He discusses the relation of religion to a naturalism which demands that
everything be explained on the basis of mathematical-mechanical laws. But when explained on
the basis of mathematical-mechanical laws the beyond, purpose and mystery which are essential
to religion will be excluded. Religion makes certain claims such as that the world is conditioned
and dependent, that there is a providence, that there is a side other than which appears to us.
These claims are proposed not as poetry or mystical statements but as truths. At the same time
these cannot be justified by, or derived from a consideration of nature in any straightforward
sense. What is the reason can do is just to show that science does not conflict with these claims.
The reason faces the inability to consider the truth value of the religious claims. The reason may
point out hints in nature which suggest that these claims are true. But reason cannot justify them.

7
These truths differ in kind from those of science and common sense and have their own grounds
such as heart and conscience, feeling and intuition. It is possible to make, on the one hand,
correlations between various feelings, and religious claims on the other. Corresponding to the
claim that the world is conditioned and dependent there is the feeling of the dependence and
conditionality of all things. The claim that there is a providence, or teleological order, in things
implies that certain value judgments are true and these value judgments rest on feeling and
intuition. Corresponding to the claim that there is a beyond is piety, that is, a feeling and
intuition, which is bound up with our experience of the beautiful and the mysterious, that there is
a reality behind appearances.

However when applied to religion there is an ambiguity with regard to the full meaning and
sense of feeling and intuition. In the beginning stages of his philosophical thinking Otto talks of
them at least in three ways. He sometimes talks of them as if they were feelings in a
straightforward sense. At other times he talks of them as if they were half-formulated judgments
which carry with them an inescapable sense of conviction and still other times he talks of them
as if they were cognitive experiences in somewhat the same way that visual experiences are
cognitive.

But later on the notion of religious feelings and intuitions receive a more complete treatment. We
have an immediate knowledge of reality, the noumenal world which shows itself in feelings of
truth. These feelings can be brought to full consciousness as ideas. An idea is a concept which
can be applied to reality. When temporally schematized the categories of theoretical reason can
be applied to appearances and can also, when schematized by the principle of completeness be
applied to reality itself. A category thus schematized is an idea. These ideas are essentially
negative. They exclude certain characteristics such as temporality, contingency from reality. He
very clearly makes a distinction between the feeling of beauty and of the sublime on the one
hand and religious feeling on the other hand and all the three of these feelings either directly or
indirectly disclose the reality.

RELIGIOUS FEELING AND THE FEELING OF THE SUBLIME

8
In his book The Idea of Holy he tries to make a clear distinction between numinous or religious
feeling and the feeling of the sublime. Numinous feelings have two primary aspects (i) a feeling
of religious dread (ii) a feeling of religious fascination. The closest analogue to religious dread or
awe is the feeling of uncanniness – the feeling one has when the hair on the back of one’s neck
rises, the shudder or terror on hearing a ghost story, the dread of haunted places. The feeling of
fascination by, attraction to, and prizing of the object which arouses the feeling in question
creates both the desire to approach the object and the feeling that one possesses no value when
considered in relation to the fascinating and prized object.

His attempt to conceptualize and describe the various feelings must be clearly distinguished from
his theory about numinous. According to him numinous feelings are, first of all, unique and it
cannot be analyzed as a complex of non-numinous feeling such as love, fear, horror, a feeling of
sublimity, and so on. Secondly the capacity for numinous feeling is unexplainable. Although the
capacity may appear in the world only when certain conditions are fulfilled, the conditions do not
constitute an adequate explanation of the capacity in question. Thirdly numinous feelings are
also cognitive. The feelings are the source of the concept of the numinous – the concept of
something which is both a value and an objective reality. It is cognitive in the sense that they are
like visual experiences. They have immediate and primary reference to an object outside the self
i.e., the numinous quality or object, which is an object of numinous feelings in somewhat the
same way that visible objects and qualities might be said to be the object of visual experiences.

However the relation between these two is not clear. There could be two interpretations. In the
first interpretation it is claimed that numinous feelings disclose the numinous object. The
encounter with the numinous object through numinous experiences gives rise to the concept of
the numinous in much the same way that encounters with objects and qualities through visual
experiences are thought to give rise to the concepts of those objects and qualities. The concept of
the numinous is both a priori and a posteriori. It is a posteriori since it is not derived from the
experience of an object or quality and it is a priori because it is not derived from any sense
experience. The feeling is the source of the concept only in the sense that it discloses the object
of the concept. It is the encounter with the object that produces the concept of the object.
According to the second interpretation the feeling gives rise to both the concept and the

9
disclosure of the numinous object. However it is not the encounter with the numinous which
gives rise to the concept of the numinous rather it is feeling that furnishes the concept. The
feeling which furnishes the concept also discloses the object to which the concept applies. Now
the problem is how are these two functions of numinous feelings related, since neither the
concept nor the object is given in isolation. The two are given together although one is not
derived from the other.

In both these interpretations he claims that feeling puts us in contact with, discloses, something
outside of ourselves. Feeling becomes like visual and auditory experiences. It has an objective
referent whether this is structured by an a priori concept or whether it simply gives rise to a
concept. The object of numinous feeling, according to him, is numen. Numen is both value and
object and can be only indirectly characterized. For example the encounter with the numen
evokes religious dread. This is analogues to fear. So it is the property of the numen which
arouses religious dread. However, we can schematize the numen by means of such rational
concepts as goodness, completeness, necessity and substantiality. It means that concepts of this
kind can be predicated of the numen.

THE CATEGORY OF THE HOLY

When the concept of the numinous and the schematizing concepts are brought together we have
the complex category of the holy itself. His analysis of the structure of the religious
consciousness is based on a clarification of the key-word of all religions namely ‘Holy’. The
word holy can have varied forms of characteristics. One of the characteristics can be that it is
rational in its nature in the sense that it can be thought conceptually. Thus for example by
holiness we can mean moral goodness and it is possible to have some kind of understanding of
what goodness is. But the rational characteristics do not explain completely the meaning of the
word holy. For Otto the rational meaning is only derivative. In its fundamental sense the word
holy stands for a non-rational character. By it we mean that it is something which cannot be
thought conceptually.

10
From this preliminary examination we can say religion is compounded of rational and non-
rational elements. We think of God in terms of goodness, personality, purpose, and so on. These
ideas are applied to God analogically. They are rational characteristics in the sense that we have
definite concepts of them. This rational side of religion is something that cannot be dispensed
with in religion. But sometimes it neglects the deeper non-rational core of religion. God is not
exhausted in his rational attributes. He is the holy God and the adjective points to his deeper,
inconceivable, super rational nature. Otto wishes to stress this non-rational side of religion since
traditional philosophy and theology has lost sight of it and has given an excessively
intellectualistic interpretation.

But the problem is if the numinous core of religion is inconceivable, how can we talk about it or
explain it? According to him although it is inconceivable, it is somehow within our grasp. We
apprehend it in feeling, in the sensus numinus and by feeling. The feeling is not mere an emotion
but an affective state of mind which involves some kind of valuation and pre-conceptual
cognition. The most valuable contribution of Otto consists of his careful analysis of the feeling-
states which constitute the numinous experience. There is on the one side what is called
‘creature-feeling’ that is the feeling of nothingness of finite being. On the other side is the feeling
of the presence of an overwhelming Being that is the numinous Being which strikes dumb with
amazement. It is summarized in the expression “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” Mysterium
points to what is called the ‘wholly other’ character of the numinous Being, which, as supra
rational, utterly transcends the grasp of conceptual thought. The element of tremendum points to
the awe or even the dread experience in face of the majesty, overpoweringness and dynamic
energy of the numinous presence. The element of fascinans points to the captivating attraction of
the numinous Being, evoking rapture and love.

The feeling revealed in the analysis of the numinous experience, while analogous to natural
feelings, have a unique quality. The sensus numinis is something sui generis. It cannot be
compounded out of merely natural feelings. It cannot even be regarded as evolved from natural
feelings. For Otto it is connected with faculty of divination that is a faculty of genuinely
cognizing and recognizing the holy in its appearance.

11
These speculations prepare the way for Otto’s assertion that the holy is an a priori category. Its
non-rational or numinous element is said to arise from the deepest foundation of cognitive
apprehension that the soul possesses. The idea of a non-rational category may surprise us.
Whatever we may think of the more speculative elements in Otto’s thought we must
acknowledge that in his analysis of the numinous he has led us into the innermost sanctuary of
religion and has described it with extraordinary power.

Check Your Progress III

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

01. What is the difference between religious feelings and the feeling of the sublime?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

02. Explain about the category of Holy?

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….

4.4. CRITICAL REMARKS

A descriptive approach to religion seems to have much to acclaim it. It plainly places before us
what the basic elements in religious experience are, without distorting the picture by introducing
doubtful speculations about the possible genesis or ultimate significance of such experience. One
can aim at presenting the essence of the phenomenon which appears in the religious

12
consciousness. These thinkers whom we have seen seem to get the essence of the phenomenon,
that which is genuinely religion. These thinkers have penetrated to the affective states of mind
which lie at the heart of religion which are so often overlooked both in intellectualist accounts
and in pragmatic accounts. The intellectualist accounts understand religion as a kind of world-
view and pragmatic accounts tries to assimilate religion to morality.

An accurate description of the typical experiences of the religious person would seem to provide
at least a firm starting-point for an investigation into religion. But the question is, is it enough?
Do we need something more? The answer to this question depends on whether or not the
religious experience can be regarded as sui generis, qualitatively unique and irreducible. Some
thinkers take this view but Marett is more cautious. He suggests that the awe which he considers
basic to religion may be compounded of natural feelings like fear, love, reverence and the like.

Otto and other thinkers think that it is important to maintain the unique quality of the religious
experience. But when they try to do this by talking of a faculty of divination or of the
theomorphic structure in man, they seem to have left the relatively firm ground of description
and receded into a more speculative realm. For example Otto adopts Kantian terminology and
speaks of the numinous as an a priori category which undergoes schematization into the idea of
the holy.

However accurate the descriptions of religious experience that are offered to us may be, it seems
that they cannot establish the validity of such experience. Yet on the other hand a clear
description of religious experience must be the first step towards its assessment. Perhaps there is
no way at all in which the validity of religious experience can be established. One can only be
pointed to the kind of experience which Otto and the others describe and be left to decide about it
in the light of the most honest discrimination of one’s experience that can be made.

4.5. LET US SUM UP

Human not only lives but seeks power for one’s life. Religion arises at the point where human’s
own power is met by another power, such as the mana of primitive religion. It is a strange,

13
wholly other power extends into life. The phenomenology cannot grasp this power in itself but
only in the appearance in which it is experienced. It is possible to describe the types of religion
in which man is encountered by this wholly other power. Though an unprejudiced or neutral
attitude is the ideal, very often it is found as some thing impossible. Religions cannot be laid out
on the table and examined like so many natural objects.

4.6. KEY WORDS

Matrix = A situation or surrounding substance within which something else originates,

develops, or is contained.

Taboo = A prohibition, especially in Polynesia and other South Pacific islands, excluding
something from use, approach, or mention because of its sacred and inviolable nature.

Phenomenology = It is a philosophical approach concentrating on the study of consciousness

and the objects of direct experience. It is the description or study of appearances. This term was
introduced by Lambert in 1764. It is philosophical method restricted to the careful analysis of the
intellectual processes which we are introspectively aware of. Brentano, Husserl, Heidegger and
Merleau-Ponty are some the important philosophers who used this method in their philosophy.

Sui Generis = is a Latin expression, literally meaning of its own kind/genus or unique in its
characteristics. The expression is often used in analytic philosophy to indicate an idea, an entity,
or a reality which cannot be included in a wider concept.

4.7. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Davison, R.F. Rudolf Otto’s Interpretation of Religion. Princeton, New Jersey, 1947
Gerrish, Brian A. A Prince of the Church. Schleiermacher and the Beginnings of Modern
Theology. London / Philadelphia, 1984.
Marett, Robert R. Faith, Hope, and Charity in Primitive Religion. Macmillan Company, 1932.
Marett, Robert R. The Threshold of Religion. Kessinger: 2004,

14
Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine
and Its Relation to the Rational. Tr. J. W. Harvey. New York: 1958.
Pratt, Bissett James. The Religious Consciousness. New York: 2005.

4.8. ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I

1. The idea of Mana is the central theme of his description. This word takes its origin in
the Pacific region. But the idea for which it stands is said to be wide spread among
primitive peoples. Generally this word has come to be applied to a certain type of
religious experience. Mana as a force altogether distinct from physical power, which
acts in all kinds of ways for good and evil. It is a kind of occult power. This occult
force is supposed to attach to a wide range of natural objects and persons. To this
force is attributed the success in war, prosperity in agriculture, powers in hunting etc.
Mana negatively seen is taboo. That which possesses mana is taboo. This means
mana is not to be lightly approached or else its power break forth in a harmful and
destructive manner.

2. What constitutes the core of the primitive religious consciousness is nothing other
than awe. He describes awe as human being’s reaction to the hidden mysterious
forces of its environment. It cannot be merely interpreted as fear of the unknown. It is
much more than fear. Viewing from this point we can say that religion does not
originate just in fear of the unknown. The essential constituents of awe are wonder,
admiration, respect, even love

Answers to Check Your Progress II

15
 1. Religion is a determination of feeling, a feeling of being absolutely dependent. This
feeling is one and the same thing with consciousness of being in relation with God.
The original meaning of the word “God” is not a concept of perfect being but the felt
relation of absolute dependence. Therefore religion arises not in ideas, in willing, but
in the immediate consciousness of an immediate existence-relationship. Religion is
more than a determination of feeling. It is the name given to the personal self-
consciousness in which the feeling of absolute dependence and consciousness of the
world coexist and must achieve a living, stable order. The feeling of being absolutely
dependent is also the feeling of identity through which the individual is conscious of
his inner uniqueness. The feeling of absolute dependence is not because of any felt
deficiency. The feeling of being absolutely dependent or God consciousness, as he
calls it, is discernible only because self-consciousness also involves thinking and
willing, which are forms of rational relation between the person and his world, forms
involving consciousness of relative dependence and relative freedom. He
distinguishes the feeling of being absolutely dependent from the feeling of relative
dependence. In the latter a person stands in the relations of community and
reciprocity with nature and society while in the former there is no reciprocity present.
Therefore there can be no consciousness of being in relation to God apart from
consciousness of being in relation to the world.

Answers to Check Your Progress III

1. In his book The Idea of Holy he tries to make a clear distinction between numinous or
religious feeling and the feeling of the sublime. Numinous feelings have two primary
aspects (i) a feeling of religious dread (ii) a feeling of religious fascination. The
closest analogue to religious dread or awe is the feeling of uncanniness – the feeling
one has when the hair on the back of one’s neck rises, the shudder or terror on hearing
a ghost story, the dread of haunted places. The feeling of fascination by, attraction to,
and prizing of the object which arouses the feeling in question creates both the desire
to approach the object and the feeling that one possesses no value when considered in
relation to the fascinating and prized object.

16
2. When the concept of the numinous and the schematizing concepts are brought
together we have the complex category of the holy itself. The word holy can have
varied forms of characteristics. One of the characteristics can be that it is rational in
its nature in the sense that it can be thought conceptually. Thus for example by
holiness we can mean moral goodness and it is possible to have some kind of
understanding of what goodness is. But the rational characteristics do not explain
completely the meaning of the word holy. For Otto the rational meaning is only
derivative. In its fundamental sense the word holy stands for a non-rational character.
By it we mean that it is something which cannot be thought conceptually.

17