BLOCK -1 INTRODUCTION

We are witnessing today, perhaps more than before, a curious phenomenon. On the one hand,
there is a widespread atheism, a religious indifference and dissatisfaction with the organized or
institutionalized religion. On the other hand, there is also a widespread search for authentic
religious values, a growing need for personal religious experience and an interest in the world’s
religious pluralism.
One might point out many reasons for this double phenomenon. Religion often stirs up in people
a feeling of repulsion because of its other worldly concern, its improvable beliefs, its apparent
superstitions, its rigid pattern of behaviour and customs – all of which goes counter to the
increasing secular, rational and empirical spirit of human. At the same time, religion also creates
a feeling of attraction because of its sense of mystery, of human and spiritual values it promotes,
and of its offer of inward peace and happiness. Interest in the multiplicity of religions has been
aroused not only by such sciences as anthropology, psychology and sociology and by the coming
closer together of people professing different religions and by the need for political and
economic cooperation on an international level, but also by the growing awareness on the part of
many religious persons of the inherent significance and import of religious pluralism as such.
The present block, consisting of 4 units, prepares a student to understand the ‘religions of the
world’ in their historical context and proper perspectives.

Unit 1on “Religion: Its Salient Features” gives a clear idea about religion. Religion binds
humans together and also binds the loose ends of impulses, desires and various processes of
individual life. Therefore religion is an integrative experience. All the definitions point to “divine
power” as our ultimate concern. The intimate relation between religion and morality is also
emphasized in many definitions of religions.

Unit 2 highlights that “Religious Experience” can be considered as the clue to our understanding
of religions, as it puts us in touch with the soul of religions. In this unit we browse through three
of the classical studies in religious experience and with their help come to the conclusion that
religious experiences are primarily integrative experiences that overcome the existential
wrongness of human situations. This involves being in touch with a reality that is present in
nature, but is not nature. But it is a reality that does not impose itself on us against our will.

Unit 3 reviews “Sociology and Psychology of Religion” with a special emphasis on the
contributions made by the world’s most renowned sociologists and psychologists of religion. We
examine the general characteristics of the sociology and psychology of religion to have a better
grasp of the meaning and significance of religion in the world today.

The last Unit, “Religious Pluralism,” focuses its attention on the experience of diversity of
religions in our world and in our country and try to understand how we can respond to this
dynamic scenario that invites a responsible and creative response. Today people of every religion
in the light of their experience of religious plurality are led to reflect on the question of diversity
of religions. Why are there many different religions? If God is one, why there is no one religion?
How should these religions relate to each other?

1
The above given 4 units will give you an introductory understanding of religion required to grasp
the teachings of religions of the world. Besides, this block will help you to know that all
religious experiences, even if at times they appear to be private and personal, have been
sociologically and psychologically influenced.

2
UNIT 1 RELIGION: ITS SALIENT FEATURES

Contents
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Definition and Nature of ‘Religion’
1.3 Metaphysical theories of Religion
1.4 Religion in its Relation to Other Disciplines: Morality
1.5 Let Us Sum UP
1.6 Key Words
1.7 Further Readings and References
1.8 Answers to Check Your Progress

1.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit we study the nature of religion and its salient features. It also makes us
understand how religion emerged and the need for it along with various definitions of it..
Further it is necessary to study its relation with other disciplines.

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Grasp the meaning and nature of ‘religion’
• Know the common salient features of religion
• Understand the foundational metaphysical theories of religion and religious
beliefs
• Draw the intricate relationship between religion and morality; religion and art and
religion and science
• Have an idea of conceptual framework within which religion works.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Religion has evolved out of ‘life’ and hence can never be divorced from it. There is a need
in us, for a successful adjustment, which in turn requires an understanding of the world in
which we live. We are placed in physical and social environment which consist of
fellowmen with their histories and prophecies – that have evolved as a result of competitive
and co-operative enterprise of numerous generations. It is a fact that various strands of
science, ethics, economics, sociology, history, traditions and myths are all intermingled and
entangled. Further, these strands have important claims on the individual and society. But in
this wide ‘sketch of life’ there is an urge to assign a rightful place to individual’s impulses.
From the time immemorial, philosophy, ethics and religion have played a key role in this
master plan of life.

1
 The root meaning of religion is that which binds humans together and also which binds the
loose ends of impulses, desires and various processes in individual life. Hence it is our
integrative experience both collectively and individually.

1.2 DEFINITION AND NATURE OF RELIGION

Literally the term ‘religion’ stands for the principle of unification and harmonization (Latin:
Religionis: re=back; ligare=bind). The term religion indicates that the two objects of
unification were originally unified and that they are only temporarily separated. Religion is
thus founded on the faith in the ultimate unity of humans and God. Any religion which seeks
to unite human with anything else other than divine is bound to remain imperfect. Various
thinkers have attempted to define religion in the following manner:
1) Max Müller in his book “Science of Religion” termed religion as “a mental faculty or
disposition which enables human to apprehend the infinite”.
2) E.B.Taylor in his work “Primitive Culture” defines religion as “a belief in spiritual
beings”.
3) Hoffeding in his work “Religious Philosophy” describes religion as “faith in the
conservation of value.”
4) Galloway defines religion as a “man’s faith in a power beyond himself whereby he seeks
to satisfy emotional needs and gains stability of life and which he expresses in acts of
worship and service.”
5) William James defines 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 the divine”.
6) Mathew Arnold defines religion as “nothing but morality touched with emotion”.
7) James Martineau : “religion is a belief in an ever living God that is Divine Mind and Will
ruling the universe and holding moral relations with mankind”.
8) Sri Aurobindo observes that “in most essence of religion… is the search for God and
finding God. Its aspiration is to discover the infinite, the Absolute, the One, the Divine
who is all these things and yet no abstraction but a Being… ”.

Although, in all the above definitions there is no perfect definition of religion yet each
definition brings out one or other essential feature of religion. In every definition of religion,
there is a reference to “Power” or “Divine”, which is our ultimate concern. It may also be
observed that according to thinkers like Mathew Arnold, religion is a matter of morality. A
good definition of religion is possible only when a cognizance of its important aspects in
taken. Generally it is a process which has two sides, an inner and an outer – according to
inner aspect; it is a state of belief and feeling, an inward spiritual disposition. Form the outer
side it is an expression of this subjective disposition in appropriate acts. Both these aspects
are essential to the nature of religion, and they act and react on one another in the process of
spiritual experience. There is “worshiping” and “religious commitment” in practice of any
religion. Prior to this, there must be belief in the existence of a ‘Higher Power’ without which

2
 there cannot be true worship. This belief is a must so that worshipped Being is capable of
supplying the needs. Higher powers are worshipped with the intention of having a relation
with them. There arises our faith in these powers, out of the sense of need. Feeling, belief and
will – these three together constitute religion both in the lowest and highest form of
civilization. The key notes of all religion are the feeling of the Infinite, the bowing down
before the incomprehensible, the yearning after the unseen love of God, and oneness with
Him.

Check your progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of the unit.
1) Explain how religion evolved
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
2) Bring out the nature of religion with reference to various definitions.
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................

1.3 METAPHYSICAL THEORIES OF RELIGION

The idea of a supreme will or Ground of the world, to which we have been led, calls for some
explanation – especially of the relation in which this will stands to the world and to finite
minds. This relation of God to cosmos may be understood better if we examine certain
conceptions of God which stand out in the historic development of the religious
consciousness. In one aspect the development of religion is a development in the
representations of God. Further, the various forms of conceiving the Divine object points to
the needs of which the growing religious spirit becomes conscious. Of these various
representations, three broad types are mentioned in this section which in the nature of the
religious consciousness is exhibited most fully in its developed forms. They are deism,
pantheism and theism.

Deism
Deism, a pre-dominant religious philosophy of British thinkers, was introduced by Herbert of
Cherbury (1583-1648) and was greatly popularized by Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), and
was also accepted by Charles Darwin (1809-1882). The deistic conception of God was formed
under the influence of human analogy. As human is contrasted with one’s work so is Deity,
here set over against the world that is considered to be one’s creation.

3
 According to deism God is perfect, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and absolute
reality. Since God himself being perfect, created this world as a prefect machine. As the
machine (world) being perfect requires no supervision, so God has retired from the world like
an absentee landlord. God created human with free will and endowed with the natural light of
reason, by virtue of which one could determine one’s moral duties. As mentioned above,
Darwin supported this view, as he maintained that, God breathed life into a few living cells
and imbued them in full potency and powers for their future evolution into various forms
through millions of years.

Further, like Charles Darwin, Newton required God to interfere with the workings of the
world from time to time to check deviations in the planetary movements. Yet his scientific
theory of universal mechanism made God unnecessary in the goings since for Newton this
world was a perfect machine. Thus growing science of this particular period made use of this
deistic view. Some of the important features of deism are as follows:
a) God is transcendent to this world. This perfect machine (world), created by a perfect
mechanic called God, does not require any divine supervision and interference. Therefore
if we pursue this view, consistently, then ‘miracles’ cannot be allowed.
b) God is described as absentee God.
c) God being transcendent remains essentially a “hidden God.” This makes God an object
beyond worship and knowledge of human.
d) The great force of deism lies in its acceptance of a natural light in human which alone is
taken as the sole authority for deciding things in morality and religion. Therefore it denies
the place of revelation in religion. But if God is transcendent then how can he be known, if
not through revelation? Thus deism has raised a number of important theological issues.
Positively with reference to deistic view it may be observed that, its insistence on the light
of reason as the final court of appeal in matters of God and morality in due course, paved
the way for rationalism, scientism and humanism. Negatively, its emphasis on the
transcendence of God robbed the religious minded human of the possibility of one’s
encounter with and worship of God. Further, since deism accepts that God created the
world, the problem of creation ever becomes more difficult for deism to solve and face
such questions as – why did a perfect God create the world? How did he create? Out of
himself or out of pre-existing matter? Further, did God create the world in void time or did
he create time along with the world? Again, if God is perfect, then, is this world of no
value to Him? If so, is this creation a mere incidence in the life of God? And if God is
infinitely good and omnipotent, then why is there evil at all?
There are no answers to the questions raised above, in any rational form of religious philosophy.
And deism certainly claims to be wholly rationalistic. Here God becomes a mere concept of
human intellect. Since, deism disregards the language of the heart it could not in the past and
cannot at present and in future influence the ‘religious mind’ who wish to enter into a personal
relation with God.

4
Pantheism
Pantheism is a phase of religious thought opposite to deism and this then has appeared and
reappeared in various systems of culture. It has a fascination for certain ideas of religious
mind. It had made its mark in the far East, in ancient Egypt and in Greece, among the Western
people of Medieval and of modern times. Pantheism impressed the intellect of men and
yielded a kind of satisfaction to the human heart. The Pantheistic theory holds that all is God
and God is all. This is derived from two Greek roots – ‘Pan’ and ‘Theos’. The following is the
translation of one of the verse from BhagwadGita; in which it is stated that “He who sees all
in Me, I am never lost to him and he is never lost to me”. Again, the same thought from
another upanishadic text (Isavasyopanisad) mentions that, “he who sees all the animate in God
and sees God in everything living, can hate none”.

Unlike deism, pantheism is a much older system of thought. It is closely related to mystic
experiences. Some of the pantheists have been highly intellectual philosophers. Sankara,
Spinoza, Upanishadic seers and Buddhist thinkers are classed among world intellectuals.

Pantheism somehow appears to be an elusive word whose spiritual significance is not well
defined. Therefore this theory like idealism denotes a movement of thought which has passed
into various forms and phases – whose religious meaning may not be identical. Materialistic
pantheism and idealistic pantheism are two broad forms of pantheism. Some pantheistic
systems posit God as self-conscious. Some declare that the world is real, while others
maintain that it is an illusion. As a result, it becomes difficult to give a general notion of
pantheism. One can aim at a clean and consistent doctrine with spiritual and ethical values
which are definitely determined. Further, in pantheism, it is difficult to explain the variety of
the world. Sankara’s version of pantheism theorizes that this variety is false, since everything
is identical with God. Another difficulty in accepting the pantheistic view is that we do
observe differences in the characteristics attributed to the world and those attributed to God.
Again, if God is taken as immanent in this world, then is he not inheriting all the ills and
defects of this world?

Theism
Theism shaped itself out of the needs and desires of the religious spirit and not consciously
developing a view that would unite what is true in deism and pantheism. Theism as a form of
religious belief understands God as a supernatural person, who is also the creator of value –
evolving world. He is transcendent to the world as well as its immanent principle. In theism,
God is an individual and spiritual personality with whom it is possible to establish a variety of
different relationships. The chief characteristic of theistic God is that he possesses a
personality which enables Him to accept the devotion and prayers of his followers and to help
them. He is infinite yet endowed with all qualities, the creator, the protector and the sustainer

5
of the world. The omnipresent God of theism is primary as well as material cause of the
universe. The history of Indian philosophical and religious thought is full of religious sects
who have contributed to theism.

Since theism satisfies our religious inclinations, it has found supporters in the East as well as
in the West. But from the philosophical standpoint it may not be a satisfactory view. It may be
observed that from philosophical standpoint God loses his quality of infinity if qualities are
attributed to it since whatever quality is attributed to God implies the destruction of opposite
quality. Further, the purpose of creation is not clear. Is there a need for God to create this
world? If he does, then he is incomplete and if not, then, it is difficult to explain the purpose
of God creating this world. Also, there is a clash in attributes between omnipotence and
omnibenevolence of God with reference to presence of evil in this world. Thus, it is true that
for a religious mind, although theism is a satisfactory theory of relation between God and the
world, philosophically it is subject to many criticisms.

Foundation of religious belief

In case of practicing religion, it is an experience of the whole person which means that it
includes one’s cognition, conation and affection, conscious and unconscious in their totality.
According to the religious mind, there is something in human nature which prompts one
heavenward. In prophetic religions it is maintained that, there is the “breath” of God in
human which directs one to find rest in Him. In general it may be said that, human is endowed
with a strong pre-disposition towards one’s spiritual quest. This spiritual pursuit in human
gives rise to religious belief. But the term ‘belief’ may be analyzed as follows: ‘belief-in’ is an
attitude to a person, whether human or Divine; and ‘believe-that’ refers to a proposition. That
is, a proposition for which some reason can be demanded. Both in belief-in and believe-that,
there is an element of trust. When we believe-in something, there is a meaning to it – in the
sense – good at, implying efficient skills or effective in producing certain good results at all
times. Thus belief-in God is highly evaluative and not merely factual, that is, acceptance of an
existential proposition, in other words, religious belief is not merely cognitive and cannot be
fully understood only in terms of factual or scientific knowledge. It has an element of heart, of
affectiveness and warmth of feelings. Thus, the foundation of religious belief rests on reason,
revelation, faith and mystic experience.

Reason: the function of a reason is to control and guide the cognitive aspect in human.
Religion drives human in search of one’s ideal self, which is put forth in one’s religious
upbringing. But the nature of the deity which embodies this ideal self, gets exposed to
increasing knowledge, which we consider as our highest concern. Therefore, rational faculty
in human helps one to establish one’s belief in the kind of deity whom one worships.

6
Reason helps in solving many religious issues. However, it remains a regulative force in all
possible sources of religious beliefs. Mystic experience, revelation and faith, all in one way or
the other, are responsible for religious beliefs, and reason remains a helpful guide in every one
of them.

Revelation: To reveal means to ‘discover.’ Revelation brings into light what was hidden
before. God, Brahman, is essentially considered to be unknown. Hence, God remains a
supernatural and supersensuous entity. God being transcendent lies beyond the ordinary
means of knowing. But human beings have an inner urge to know God. Therefore, humans
stand in need of some sort of promptings through God. He reveals himself through prophetic
religious scriptures and also through workings of nature. God’s revelation is also possible
through the grace of God, which cannot be objectively analyzed.

Faith: it is the most crucial, fundamental and significant tenet of religious life and behavior. It
is both, the necessary and sufficient condition of religious life. There can be no religion
without faith. There is a correlation between the depth and gravity of religious life and the
depth and gravity of faith. If one’s faith is superficial, then it will lack the firmness in
commitment towards religion. There is a kind of certainty in having faith in God. But it is not
born out of scientific knowledge. According to Kant, faith has subjective certainty sufficient
for action, but insufficient for objective knowledge.

Some of the general characteristics of faith include:

1) The object of faith in the religious sense is the ultimate concern of human.
2) Faith cannot be reduced to ordinary or scientific knowledge.
3) Faith includes all aspects of a human being at work and means all-pervasive attitude to the
whole reality, society and one’s total relationship.
4) Faith is a matter of human’s total self-involvement and full commitment to a certain field
of action. Faith without actions is like a tree without fruits.
5) There is total self-surrendering to God.
6) Faith is a source of inspiration and encouragement in life.

The Mystic Experience

Mysticism is the part and parcel of a genuine religious experience in the purest and
concentrated form. It is the most distinctive feature of Indian religions. It is found in
Upanishads, Advaitism, Bhakti culture and Shri Ramkrishna’s experiences. Mysticism is also
found in the thoughts of people of ancient Greece, for example, Plotinus. In Contemporary
Western Philosophy, French Philosopher, Henry Bergson, represents its. The Sufis subscribe
to mysticism. But the mystics have also been subjected to and very often they have been
deemed as psycho-neurotic persons. In mystical experience either there is complete or partial
identification of worshipper with the supreme object of worship. The mystics enjoy, i.e. there

7
 is happiness, mental efficiency and a friendly relationship with everyone. Mysticism is a
method of the realization of Ultimate Reality. The important characteristics of mysticism are
as follows:

1) It involves personal relation with Ultimate Reality.

2) The mystic considers intellectual knowledge to be useless for the realization of his goal.
3) William James mentions, four marks of mystical experience:
a) Ineffability- measures mystical experiences, defies expression, as no adequate report
of its contents can be given in words.
b) Noetic Quality means there is an insight into depth of truth unplumbed by the
discursive intellect. In other words, it is some kind of illumination, revelation of object
of worship.
c) Transiency refers to the fact that it cannot be sustained for a long time.
d) Passivity is the mystic’s feeling that one’s will is in abeyance and a superior will
wholly grasps in power.

Check your progress 2

Note : a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of the unit.
1) Define ‘Pantheism’. Is it a satisfactory theory of relation between God and world?
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
2) Explain the role of reason, revelation, mystical experience and faith as foundation of
religious belief.
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................

1.4 RELIGION IN ITS RELATION TO OTHER DISCIPLINES: MORALITY

Different views have been taken with reference to the relation of religion to morality.
1) Religion and morality are inseparable and interdependent.
2) Religion is independent of morality.
3) Morality is independent of religion as an autonomous discipline.

Interdependence of religion and morality

In higher or more developed religions morality and religion remains inseparable. For example,
Judaism and Christianity have accepted the Ten Commandments which reflects morality. Some
of these commandments are the same as ‘pancha mahavrata’ of Jainism as well as all Indian
religions. Thus religion and morality are inseparable and interdependent at least in the traditional

8
and higher religions of the world. By ‘interdependence’ is meant that religion helps morality and
morality in turn keeps on refining religious demands. Even when morality is regarded as
independent of religion, religion does not remain wholly discarded. Both Kant and R.B.
Braithwaite postulate God as the psychological booster of morality. Performance of one’s duty
should be regarded as Divine command, according to Kant. Religion with its derivative of ‘re’
and ‘legere’ means to bind also the loose ends of lower impulses within each person, hence
morality includes both the external and the interiorized rules of conduct. Both in Christianity and
Hinduism the emphasis is laid on the interiorization of morality in the direction of self-conquest
and self-culture of the soul. In general morality is the purifier of religion and religion is said to
be the perfection of morality, for God is said to be the conservator of all values. Therefore, God
is the embodiment of morality and chief guardian.
Religion as independent of morality
In primitive religions there is more of magic than morality. In early forms of religion there is
more of taboo than morality. While practicing religion the devotee becomes so holy that one
commits no sins, only holy acts flow from. Morality remains valid at the dualistic stage.
However, when one becomes one with Brahman then action ceases, for there is none to whom
one can do either good or bad. Thus there are religious thoughts when morality is either not
invoked as in certain primitive forms of religion or where one goes beyond the stage of morality.
Autonomy of morality
Kant has powerfully argued for the case of autonomy of morality. According to him, morality is
good not because God wills it, but God wills it because it is good. Since the time of Kant, the
autonomy of morals has become an accepted creed. Thinkers have regarded religion as a set of
moral principles either with emotions or backed by stories. In spite of the good which religion
has done to the development of morality, according to Freud, morality must be made
independent of religion. But morality without religion remains a hoax. Therefore, religion is
regarded as a psychological booster. Kant recommended that duties should be performed as
divine commands, because he felt that the performance of duties is difficult for humans without
such a booster, hence religion and morality have to go together by refining, criticizing and
sublimation of one with another.
Religion and Art
Religion is a holistic response of humans to Absolute Reality. Hence, it includes all the three
mental processes of cognition, conation, and affection. God is said to be the embodiment of
Truth, Beauty and Goodness. So, art in which the aspect of beauty dominates can also be used to
serve religion. For example, music, poetry, architecture, and painting are all used in religion in
its performance. By doing so, religion is made attractive and popular in the masses. Also art
becomes sanctified and sublimated when pressed in service of religion.
Religion cannot be separated from art because art includes a great many cultural expressions
without which no civilized life is possible. As mentioned above, art includes so many forms that
even the most primitive life is not possible without it. However, it is also observed that, artistic
creations were there in primitive society without reference to religion. For example, artistic
drawings of animals in the caved dwellings of primitive humans are more for the magical
success of hunting than for Totemistic worship. Also in modern times art is pursued for the sake
of art. Many television shows tend to promote secular interest largely for pushing the sale of
industrial products. In modern times, much of poetry, music, architecture, dancing and all such
pursuits have no religious end.

9
Religion goes with morality. Hence, art without religion means bereft of moral and spiritual
values. We know that some of the most inspiring pieces of poetry sculpture; archeological
remains have been sanctified by religion. It is also true that art cannot remain confined to singing
of praises to God. For this reason, in recent times, there is the cry “art for the art sake.” In the
end it should be noted that, art without the sobering effect of religion, tends to be vulgarized. The
reason is that art works through sensuous forms, which tend to restrict the advance of human
towards one’s higher spiritual pursuits.
Religion and Science
Science began through the purposive activity of humans ,who tried to adjust means to ends so
that one had a better bargain in the struggle for existence. Hence, one began to use crude
weapons like rough flint with which one could capture wild animals for food. Such a habit of
manipulation of means to ends gave rise to reflective spirit in human from which arose the desire
to understand. Human realized the importance of understanding the causal connection of things.
The scientific spirit thus evolved on this practical basis: First, to comprehend the relations of
objects and then to formulate the laws of their workings.
The aim of science is to establish continuity between the elements given in outer experience;
such continuity is achieved by means of the principle of cause and effect which is based on the
pre-supposition that phenomena are really connected with one another. Those events which
constantly recur due to causal connection are given the name “laws of nature;” they are the
convenient summaries of the behavior of things. The aim of the scientific thinker is to reach
wider and wider laws which describe the working of nature as mechanically connected system of
parts. Science may therefore be regarded as a language by which the mind tries to know, the
largest number of facts. Among the sciences, the natural sciences are in themselves, neither
religious nor anti-religious. They deal with facts of outer experience which do not raise any
religious issues.
There may be many aspects of our life experiences, which are ignored by science on the ground
that they are irrelevant to its purpose. Thus, the scientist does not want to know the “what and the
why” of the ultimate reality, again is not interested in the qualitative character of objects.
Further, one is not concerned with the existence of realm of ends, personal values and ideals.
Also, the validity of spiritual values does not concern the scientist.
The devotion of science only to objects and its method leads to narrow specialisms. It
misconceives and exaggerates the range and significance of its own activity by extending its
methods and principles to the whole universe. Thus, it leads to a purely naturalistic interpretation
of goals and values, which is not really correct. Again, strictly mechanical conception of
experience reduces its spiritual view of the world to mere illusion.
Such a conception of experience has been resisted by religion because religious postulates
transcend natural order and therefore cannot be validated by the criteria of the natural sciences.
Thus, the relation between religion and science is one of fundamental antagonism because
affirmation on one side is met with blank denial on the other. It shows that science cannot rightly
pass judgments on the nature and value of religion.
On the other hand, religion and its point of view is more comprehensive and therefore has a
bearing on the scientific interpretation of the world. Like philosophy, religion too, gives us a
world view. Hence, the scientific view must find a place within the religious view. Science and
religion need not oppose each other – rather they are related to one another, like the partial is to
the more complete or the causal is to the teleological. In other words, continuity between
elements within the experienced world rests upon the wider principle of a final cause or end

10
which is realized in and through them. The world is interested in religion because it points to the
supremacy of purpose. From this point of view, science and religion represent two levels of
experience, with science as the lower and religion as the higher.
Check your progress 3
Note : a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1) Are religion and science opposed to each other? Explain.
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
2) Show the relation between art and religion
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................

1.5 LET US SUM UP

Religion has evolved out of life experience. It binds humans together and also binds the loose
ends of impulses, desires and various processes of individual life. Therefore, religion is an
integrative experience. All the definitions refer to “Divine Power” as our ultimate concern. The
intimate relation between religion and morality is also emphasized in many definitions of
religions. The aim of religion is to explain the relation of God to the world. God as either
transcendent or immanent or both – is conceived in deism, pantheism and theism respectively.
Religious activities and religion as a whole centres around the concepts like belief, miracles,
mystical experiences, worship and faith. Relation of religion to science although appears
antagonistic in the beginning due to their different methodologies, in the end it is observed that
they do explain events in a complementary way. Religion and morality from time immemorial
are interdependent on each other, although in principle they may be thought of as existing
independently of each other. Art and religion are interdependent on each other, however in
modern times art may be said to exist for the sake of art.

1.6. KEY WORDS

Scientism: The term scientism describes the view that natural science has authority over all other
interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic
explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.
Humanism: Humanism affirms the dignity and worth of all people based on the ability to
determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality,
without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts.

1.7 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Edwards, R.M. Reason and Religion. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovihc Inc., 1972.
Hick, J. Philosophy of Religion. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India, Pvt Ltd., 1981.

11
Kesavan, H. K. Science and Mysticism. New Delhi: New Age International, 1997.
Masih, Y. Introduction to Religious Philosophy. New Delhi: Motilal BanarasiDass, 2005.
Max, Charlesworth. Philosophy & Religion: From Plato to Post-Modernism. England:One
World, 2006.
Mitcheell, B. (ed). Philosophy of Religion. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Mohapatra, A.R. Philosophy of Religion. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1990.
Sharma, R. N. Philosophy of Religion. Meerut: Kedarneth R.N., 1981.
Sherratt, B.W. & Hawkin, D.J. Gods and Men. Glasgow: Blackie & Son Ltd., 1972.
Tiele, C.P. Outlines of The History of Religion. New Delhi: Logos Press, 2005.

1.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check your progress I
1) Religion has evolved out of ‘life’ and hence can never be divorced from it. There is a need in
us, for a successful adjustment, which in turn requires an understanding of the world in which we
live

2) Although, in all the above definitions there is no perfect definition of religion yet each
definition brings out one or other essential feature of religion. In every definition of religion,
there is a reference to “Power” or “Divine”, which is our ultimate concern. It may also be
observed that according to thinkers like Mathew Arnold, religion is a matter of morality. A good
definition of religion is possible only when a cognizance of its important aspects is taken.
Generally it is a process which has two sides, an inner and an outer – according to inner aspect, it
is a state of belief and feeling, an inward spiritual disposition. Form the outer side it is an
expression of this subjective disposition in appropriate acts. Both these aspects are essential to
the nature of religion, and they act and react on one another in the process of spiritual
experience.
Check your progress II
1) Pantheism is a phase of religious thought opposite to deism and this then has appeared and
reappeared in various systems of culture. Pantheism impressed the intellect of humans and
yielded a kind of satisfaction to the human heart. The Pantheistic theory holds that all is God and
God is all.
2) Reason: the function of a reason is to control and guide the cognitive aspect in human.
Religion drives human in search of one’s ideal self, which is put forth in one’s religious
upbringing. But the nature of the deity which embodies this ideal self, gets exposed to increasing
knowledge, which we consider as our highest concern. Therefore, rational faculty in human helps
to establish one’s belief in the kind of deity whom one worships. Revelation brings into light
what was hidden before. God, Brahman, is essentially considered to be unknown. God reveals
himself through prophetic religious scriptures and also through workings of nature. God’s
revelation is possible also through the grace of God, which cannot be objectively analyzed.

12
Faith is the most crucial, fundamental and significant tenet of religious life and behavior. It is
both the necessary and sufficient condition of religious life. There can be no religion without
faith. According to Kant, faith has subjective certainty sufficient for action, but insufficient for
objective knowledge.

Check your progress III

1) Science and religion need not oppose each other – for they are related to each other, like the
partial is to the more complete or the causal is to the teleological. In other words, continuity
between elements within the experienced world rests upon the wider principle of a final cause or
end which is realized in and through them. The world is interested in religion because it points to
the supremacy of purpose. From this point of view, science and religion represent two levels of
experience, with science as the lower and religion as the higher.
2) Religion is a holistic response of humans to absolute Reality. Hence, it includes all the three
mental processes of cognition, conation, and affection. God is said to be the embodiment of
truth, beauty and goodness. So, art in which the aspect of beauty dominates can also be used to
serve religion. For example, music, poetry, architecture, and painting are all used in religion in
its performance. By doing so, religion is made attractive and popular in the masses. Also art
becomes sanctified and sublimated when pressed in service of religion.

13
UNIT 2 RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

Contents

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Importance of Religious Experience
2.3 What is Experience?
2.4 Study of Religious Experience: A Brief History.
2.5 Some Classical Texts
2.6 What is Religious Experience?
2.7 Let Us Sum Up
2.8 Key Words
2.9 Suggested Readings and References
2.10 Answers to Check Your Progress

2.0 OBJECTIVES
Religions are pretty complex things –as complex as human beings themselves. Just as human
beings are made up of mind and body, body and soul, intellect and emotions, the conscious and
the unconscious, individual personality and a social nature, religions also exhibit a similar
complexity. Faced with such complexity, it is very easy to identify religion with one or the other
of these dimensions and miss out on the whole that religion is. This unit is meant to enable you
to see in a holistic manner, not by studying all its parts, but by studying the spirit that animates
religion as a whole, namely, religious experience. By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
• Say why religious experience is important in the study of religions
• Identify some key authors and the title/s of their book on religious experience.
• Have an adequate understanding of religious experience
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Let us begin with the last objective –an adequate understanding of religious experience. What
kind of understanding can be considered adequate? Our understanding would be considered
adequate if it identifies at least some characteristic features of religious experience in general.
These features should be general enough because if we identify religious experience with
Nirvana of the Buddhists, for example, we would be neglecting experiences that are typical of
other traditions. Secondly, our understanding must pick out the typical of religious experience
alone. In other words, it should not be so broad and general as to apply to other, non-religious

1
experiences. If we identify religious experience with ecstasy and bliss, for example, such
experiences might as well be induced by drugs and alcohol, but it may not have any features that
religious people consider essential to religious experience. Given the complexity of religions, it
is a difficult task to arrive at an adequate understanding of religious experience. Still this is what
we shall attempt to do.
In coming to an adequate understanding of religious experience, we shall proceed, first by
reflecting on the nature experience in general and come to the realization that such a procedure is
problematic for considering the nature of religious experience. This, in turn, would lead us look
at some of the classical texts in the study of religious experience. Armed with the insights gained
from that study we shall proceed give a characterization of religious experience. Let us begin,
however, with some considerations about the importance of religious experience.
2.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

When we think of religions the first thing that is likely to come to our mind are the temples,
mosques and churches that dot our land. But when we think about them a little more we begin to
realize that temples and mosques and churches are merely the tip of the icebergs that we call
religions. It is merely one of the many observable, external aspects. There are also others. These
external dimensions of religions can generally be brought under 4 Cs:
• Creed (beliefs systems and doctrines),
• Code (rules of conduct, some of which may even seem unethical to outsiders),
• Cult (worship and adoration),
• Community (some religions emphasize this dimension more than the others).
These visible, external, aspects of religions can be studied under various disciplines such as
anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, psychology, and so on. But apart from these
external aspects, religions also have an internal, spiritual side that is invisible. We could consider
this invisible side of religions as religious experience. Doing yoga and namaz, attending worship
and so on, for example, are visible; but the inner peace and tranquillity one achieves by doing
such activities is something that happens in the invisible interior of persons. Religious
experience, then, can be considered the spirit of religion in the sense that it provides the end or
goal of the various religious practices and observances, in as much as this end is obtainable in
this life. (It is necessary to add the clause “in as much as it is obtainable in this life” because
most religions would not be satisfied only with gaining such experiences in this life, but also
look forward to a life of immortality and eternal bliss.)

Religious experience can also be considered as the spirit of religion in another sense. This is best
explained by considering historical religions like Buddhism or Christianity. Take the case of
Buddhism. The foundational principle of Buddhism can be found in that profound experience of
its founder, Gautama Buddha, which is his Enlightenment. Similarly Christianity is based on the
experience of what the Christians call their experience of the Christ-event, namely, how a group
of people who were the disciples of Jesus experienced their guru in his life, teachings, death and
after death (they called it the resurrection of their master). Both the Buddhist and the Christian
religions, then, can be seen as attempts at institutionalizing and perpetuating these foundational
experiences in the form of certain records that has come to be accepted as their sacred scriptures
and certain religious practices, like certain modes of worship and meditation. All the above

2
mentioned externals of creed, code, cult and community are institutional instruments meant to
perpetuate these experiences so that they can be passed on from one generation to the next.
Religious experiences, therefore, can be seen as the source of these religions. Can we say that
this is true, not only of historical religions like Buddhism, but also of other religions like
Hinduism? It seems true of Hinduism too, in as much as it accepts normative scriptures like the
Vedas and the Upanishads which contain some of the primitive religious experiences of ancient
Indians. Therefore, it seems reasonable to generalize our point and say that religions originate in
certain religious experiences and seek to institutionalize those experiences.

Why to institutionalize such experiences? The answer is simple enough. Those who have had
these experiences consider them to be so valuable that they want all the others to have a share of
what they have experienced. Religion itself, then, may be defined as institutionalizations of
certain experiences with a view to inducing those experiences in its followers.

The last phrase is significant. For most people, being religious means to be a part of a
community and share in its mode of worship, accept its belief system and doing what that
traditions demands. We could call it conventional religiosity: it is a matter of following the
demands of a tradition. Asking questions about the meaning of those practices, or seeking a
personal religious experience is not a part of conventional religiosity. Conventional religiosity is
a habit, a custom, a tradition that is received and is carried on. Such religious believers are
dangerous. If they are ardent followers of a tradition, they become fanatics who want to maintain
their tradition at any cost, even by killing others. On the other hand, if they are not ardent
followers, they can be easily weaned away from their religion to atheistic and agnostic ways.

However, unlike these run-of-the-mill believers, there are others for whom religion is a personal
and living reality. They may carry on a tradition if they find it meaningful, or abandon it when it
is not found meaningful. For this group of people religious experience is extremely significant. If
they criticise received traditions it is on the basis of their experience; if they maintain traditional
practices it is because they see those practices as significant in terms of their experience. William
James called such people “religious geniuses”. What he meant is that just as there are ordinary
scientists and extraordinarily gifted ones (like Newton or Einstein), so too, there are geniuses in
religion. Most religious founders and reformers belong to this category of religious geniuses.
Whenever genuine religious spirit is threatened, they step in to bring about a new religiosity.

The long and short of this discussion is that religious experiences constitute the spirit of the
complex entities we call religions. Religious experiences are the spirit of religions in the twofold
sense of being the origin and goal, source and summit of religions (with the above mentioned
qualification regarding goal). It is the religion of those who are genuinely religious and whom
others try to follow.

If religious experience is the soul of religions, it is important to know what religious experience
is.

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.

3
1) What are the requirements of an adequate understanding of religious experience?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………..
2) What are the external elements of religion?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………

2.3 WHAT IS EXPERIENCE?

A good starting point for considering what an experience is would be to reflect on the examples
just given. When we speak of experiencing the breeze or the setting sun and so on, we are
thinking of an object or an event (a happening). But it is also obvious that merely there being an
object or event is not an experience. For anything to be an experience, besides the presence of an
object or event we must also be aware of it. Therefore we can say that an experience is an object
or an event which enters into our consciousness. But a little more reflection would show that this
definition is still not correct. The First World War is an event that has entered into my
consciousness in as much as I know about it; but it is not an event that I have experienced; I was
not even born then. I know about it from history books and not directly from my experience.
Therefore we need to qualify our statement further by adding a third element to our definition of
experience, namely directness. Experience, then, is direct or immediate awareness of an object or
an event. Thus, experience is an immediate or direct awareness of an object or an event, unlike
such sources of awareness as testimony, inference and so on.

The definition of experience we have just given can be considered the episodic view because
experience is understood as an episode, a particular happening in consciousness (as in “that was a
memorable experience”). But there are others who argue that this view ignores the most
important characteristic of experience, namely, the expertise that comes from many years of hard
work. For example, when we talk some one as an experienced teacher, experienced architect,
experienced politician, and so on, we are obviously not referring to a person who has undergone an
episode. Teaching a class once does not make me an experienced teacher; it is repeated acts of
teaching that makes me an experienced teacher. Experience in this sense is an expertise, the result of
hard work. While episodes are occasional happenings, expertise is a more permanent achievement.

This view makes an important point and has special significance when it comes to religious
experience, as we will have occasion to see. On the other hand, we have no reason to consider
episodes and expertise as mutually exclusive. There would be no expertise were it not for repeated
episodes of experience. Moreover, in some cases, repeated episodes may not even be necessary to
have a lasting impact on the person (as in the conversion experience of St. Paul that we learn in the
New Testament) and in some other cases, repetition may be impossible as in experiencing the death
of a loved one. In such cases an “isolated moment of heightened awareness” makes all the
difference and brings about lasting impacts on those who have the experience. Therefore, we shall
stick to our episodic definition of experience, with its triple components of an object or event, an

4
awareness of the object, and the direct manner in which this awareness enters our consciousness.
But we shall keep in mind that wherever possible, repeated episodes leading to expertise are to be
treasured more than isolated individual happenings.

If we apply our general understanding of ‘experience’ to characterize religious experience, we

will have to say that religious experience is an experience of religious objects. This is not
entirely false; people do speak of experiencing divine objects or persons (God, Virgin Mary etc.)
While it is not entirely false to speak of religious ‘objects’ there is a preliminary difficulty with
this definition: What would qualify to be a religious object? There seems to be numerous
candidates that qualify to be such objects (God, Nirvana, Brahman, Virgin Mary, Kali and so
on). Moreover, to speak of God or any other as “objects” of religious experience is a red-herring
because these so called religious objects are not objects at all, in our ordinary understanding of
objects since these are not available to our senses as other objects of experience are. If we are not
to define religious experience in terms of experienced objects, how else are we to define
religious experience?
One way of doing it is to say that a religious experience is an experience that occurs in a
religious tradition or in contexts like that of religious worship or meditation. This is sure to
include the Buddhist experience, but it leads to a more serious problem: original religious
experiences like the Enlightenment of Buddha would be excluded by such a definition, in as
much as it took place outside the traditional religious context and gave birth to a new religion.
How, then shall we go about defining religious experience? Ordinarily we define something
either by appealing to common experience or to those who are proficient users of that idea. We
did not have any serious difficulty in circumscribing the meaning of ‘experience’ because it was
possible to appeal to common experiences. But that does not seem possible in the case of
religious experience. Let us turn, then, to the other alternative and see how experts have tried to
deal with religious experience. For this purpose we shall turn to the classical studies on religious
experience.

2.4 STUDY OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: A BRIEF HISTORY

If religious experiences constitute the source and summit of religions, one would expect that they
would find a prominent place in the philosophy of religion. However, this has not always been
the case. Philosophical attention to religious experience is a modern development. Prior to the
modern period, what used to arouse the interest of the philosophers of religion were matters
dealing with the existence of God, the nature of Brahman, relationships between God and the
world, God and the soul, and so on. They used to routinely engage in arguments for the existence
of God, for example. The modern interest in the study of religious experience came about,
paradoxically, with the realization that such arguments for the existence of God do not prove
much and they do not take us far. Counter-arguments of thinkers like David Hume and Immanuel
Kant were instrumental in exposing the shortcomings of such arguments. Many educated people
even began to look down upon religious beliefs as unworthy of intelligent and educated people.
Kantian philosophy made religion an adjunct of morality. It is under such adverse circumstances
that the study of religious experience came to prominence. Let us briefly look at certain key
thinkers who have contributed to the study of religious experience.

5
2.5 SOME CLASSICAL TEXTS

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 - 1834)

We noted that whenever genuine religious spirit is under threat there arise certain religious
geniuses who can rise to the need of the hour. Schleiermacher was such a genius. He had a deep
personal sense of religion. On the other hand, he kept the company of those who despised
religion as a mix of meaningless inherited dogmas and practices that threatened free thinking and
individual creativity. It is to this group of Romantic friends that he addressed his first great book,
On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799). His personal sense of religion enabled
him to see that religion is not morality (as Kantian philosophy tended to see). Nor is it
doctrines and dogmas detrimental to human flourishing, as his Romantic friends thought. He
tried to persuade his friends that genuine religion is rooted in a kind of experience that is sui
generis. Doctrines and practices have only a derived status; they arise from reflecting upon
these experiences.

How does he understand religious experience? Religious experience, for him, is the “integrative
element of human life and culture”. It is a feeling of absolute dependence on something that
is infinite, but manifesting itself in all that is finite.

William James (1842-1910)

If the many roles of a pioneering psychologist, medical doctor and philosopher with a flair for
literature could be combined into one person, that is William James. His classic work on
religious experience is The Varieties of Religious Experience. As the title suggests, the book is
full of anecdotes from all over the world narrating all kinds of religious experiences. It is a
veritable encyclopaedic collection of experiences enriched with his penetrating comments and
insightful reflections. So very influential has this work been that it would be hard to find a book
on the philosophy religious experience today that will not have at least a reference to it. But it is
not a book that lends itself to summarising. James has something to say about all the major issues
in religion that are being discussed today. But I shall merely point out two of his ideas selected
almost arbitrarily.

The first concerns the existential character of religion. If Schleiermacher was instrumental in
bringing about the Copernican revolution in religious thinking by emphasising human religious
experience as the appropriate starting point (instead of received doctrines, scriptures and
revelations) of religious reflection, James took it to a further level by pointing out the existential
nature of religious experience. He pointed out that religion is primarily about a sense of
wrongness or uneasiness about the human situation, a wrongness that is corrected by ‘making
proper connection with the higher powers’.

Another key topic of his discussion is mystical experiences, which he considers to be ‘the root
and centre’ of all religious experience. Although most mystical experiences involve elaborate
training in different religious traditions, he also notes that nature seems to have peculiar ability to
induce mystical moods in us. Such experiences have come to be known as “nature mysticism”.
But what is mysticism? James’s study of mystical experiences led him to conclude that mystical
experiences involve a ‘cosmic consciousness’ that tends toward monism and pantheism. He also
points out the effects of such experience in terms the optimism it generates.

6
Rudolf Otto (1869-1937)
Otto was a widely travelled German who was exposed to different religions of the world. He,
like Schleiermacher and James, was absolutely convinced that the religious realm is sui generis.
In other words religious experience cannot be understood adequately in terms of anything else,
say in biological, chemical or psychological terms. It needs to understood in its own terms. What
is even more disconcerting to the philosopher is that he holds religion to have a non-rational core
which cannot be articulated in language. He does not deny the rational side of religion; his point
is that if we focus only on the rational side, we miss out on what is properly speaking the
religious character of religious experience. To this non-rational, non-explainable element of
religion he gave the name “Numinous”. In order to show this non-rational character of such
experiences he avoids using ordinary words to describe them, preferring to use Latin words
instead. If the religious realm cannot be explained in words, how can it be known? It can be
known because everyone has an inborn sense of the numinous. It cannot be explained, but it can
be evoked indirectly. His classic work, The Idea of the Holy is such an attempt to awaken in the
reader the sense of the numinous through a rational discussion and analysis of similar
experiences in the natural realm. Numinous is said to be mysterium tremendum (awesome
mystery).

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) What are the three components of an experience?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
2) What is religious experience for Schleiermacher?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………..

2.6 WHAT IS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE?

It is clear that none of these authors talk about religious experience in terms of the object
experienced. On the contrary, all of them do by turning to the subject of experience. How then,
can we identify religious experience? We are not completely helpless in the matter. There is a
special class of experiences that are often referred to as “nature mysticism”, that are relatively
independent of such conditioning. Here is one of the most commonly quoted examples from
William Blake:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

7
 And Eternity in an hour.

What is noteworthy is that the poet sees the same grain of sand and wild flower as the rest of us,
but what he sees on this occasion is not just that; he sees a ‘world’ in a grain of sand, a ‘heaven’
in a wild flower; he experiences ‘infinity’ and ‘eternity’. In other words, such experiences take
place in and through the nature but are not an experiences of nature that all of us have in our
ordinary state of consciousness. There is something more than nature that is involved here.

While this example of nature mysticism makes us aware of a class of experiences that is
universal and draws our attention to the “more” that is experienced in nature, it lacks a crucial
component of religious experiences that James brought to our attention, namely, their existential
character: an awareness of the wrongness of our situation and its overcoming. The following
example is better in this respect than the previous one.
One day I was feeling deeply depressed by the severe criticisms a colleague had received
–a person who was living his life in an honest and truthful sense…. Nothing was real…
After the children had gone to bed, I decided to go for a walk. The night was dark,
filled with black clouds. Large white flakes of snow fell on and around me. Inside, a
surging restlessness replaced my benumbed state. …Suddenly without understanding in
any way, I experienced a transcendental beauty in the white darkness. It was difficult to
walk on the glazed, iced surface… Immediately I felt a chill but at the same time I felt the
ice being warmed as my fingers touched it. It was a moment of communion, an
experience of knowing and understanding, and a feeling of complete solace. I felt my
inward heaviness lifting, and discovered a new capacity for…facing conflicts which
existed around and in me…. We need only reach out in natural covering to come face to
face with creation.
The person is in a state that is far from welcome. He feels depressed, restless, benumbed; life is
seen as meaningless and futile (“Nothing was real”). But it is the transition from that stage which
is astounding: from a sense of depression and desolation, he is transported into a sense of
communion and solace, knowing and understanding. The realization that reality is just waiting
for us to reach out beyond its natural covering so that we can find solace and understanding is
remarkable.
Let us now cast our net wider than nature mysticism and find other kinds of experiences that are
not conditioned by particular religions and cultures, but still maintain this sense of affinity with
the wider universe. Ian Ramsey, who had an excellent understanding of religion, brought to our
attention a class of experiences he called “cosmic disclosures”. He writes:
it may happen that when we are faced with some major problem as to vocation, or
emigration, or the suffering of an aged relative, or marriage, there occurs a complex
set of circumstances, too complex and too diversified to be the result of any one
man’s design, which helps us to resolve the problem as well for those around us as
for ourselves. …A sense of kinship with nature strikes us; the Universe is reliable
after all.

Having seen these examples, it is now time to analyse these experiences. All these experiences
make us aware of a twofold nature of reality: there is the natural world that we are ordinarily
aware and something “more” than the natural world that comes to our awareness in these
experiences alone. The second example alludes to it in talking about reaching beyond the natural
8
covering; the third example alludes to it more vaguely in terms of a kinship with nature. The
“more” is an expression used by William James to refer to this reality that cannot be identified
with the natural. Otto referred to it as the “wholly other”, “that which is beyond the sphere of the
usual, the intelligible, and the familiar…” This twofold character of reality usually finds
expression in such terms as natural and supernatural, profane and sacred, vyavaharika sat and
Paramarthika sat etc.

Secondly, there is some vague awareness about the nature of this sacred reality. Although it may
not be entirely appropriate to talk of monism to refer to it, as James does, what is clear is that
there is an intuitive awareness of certain unity or connectedness of all reality that is ordinarily
seen as many. Some call this One reality God, others call this One reality Brahman, still others
find none of these substantive terms appropriate and therefore call it Sunyata. Since this is a non-
rational, non-conceptual reality as Otto insists, these different ways of talking about that reality is
not only understandable, but even necessary get us beyond our words. Moreover, there emerges
an awareness that this reality is the really real such that “We only begin to wake to reality when
we realize that the material world, the world of space and time, as it appears to our senses, is
nothing but a sign and a symbol of mystery which infinitely transcends it.”

Thirdly, religious experiences have this existential character that is obvious in the second and
third examples. There is an awareness of the wrongness of a given situation and an overcoming
of that wrongness by being connected to a larger reality that is hidden behind the natural
covering. However, we should always be wary of talking about this connectedness of reality in
terms of a purely intellectual or abstract cosmic order as may be done in physics and cosmology.
Rather, this connectedness is always in relation to human existential situations. Devoid of that
context, no talk of a cosmic order or inter-connectedness of reality would have a religious
character.

Fourthly, although we relied on spontaneous experiences that occur without any prior
preparation so as to keep our understanding of religious experience broad enough, we should
also be aware that most religious experiences do involve some prior preparation in the form of
practices like yoga and meditation, regular prayer and interior silence, acts of worship and
adoration. But what is remarkable is that even when prior preparation is involved, the experience
itself is not seen as an automatic result of those practices. There is a sense of passivity in such
experiences, a feeling of having been gratuitously granted a favour. Theistic traditions call it
grace; but this sense of passivity is also present in the other traditions in some form or another.
The Buddhist Enlightenment (including the Zen “satori” or awakening), for example, might
come at the end of years of study and meditation; but when it comes it is experienced as a sudden
flash and not brought about by one’s will. The very term ‘Enlightenment’ signifies this. Spiritual
masters often warn their disciples that too intense an effort can be counter-productive. One is
advised to “let-go”. Taking both these points together, we could say that religious experience is
more like a change of gestalt than accumulation of knowledge or data.

Taking these points together we could briefly say that a religious experience is an experience of
cosmic connectedness and personal integration achieved through that connectedness; its
opposite would be an experience of disintegration and alienation.

9
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) What is religious experience? Explain its characteristic features.
………………………………...……………………………………………………………………
……………………………...………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………

2.6 LET US SUM UP

Religious experiences can be considered as the clue to our understanding of religions, as it puts
us in touch with the soul of religions. It is difficult however, to say what religious experience is.
Our ordinary experiences (perceptual experience, for example) can be identified easily since we
can refer to the objects perceived. But we cannot identify religious experiences in this manner.

In order to find a way out of this difficulty we browsed through three of the classical studies in
religious experience and with their help came to the conclusion that religious experiences are
primarily integrative experiences that overcome the existential wrongness of human situations.
This involves being in touch with a reality that is present in nature, but is not nature. But it is a
reality that does not impose itself on us against our will.

2.7. KEY WORDS

Sui Generis: Sui generis is a Neo-Latin expression, literally meaning of its own kind/genus or
unique in its characteristics. The expression indicates an idea, an entity or a reality that cannot be
included in a wider concept.
Numinous: Numinous (from the Classical Latin numen) is an English adjective describing the
power or presence of a divinity. The numinous experience also has a personal quality to it, in that
the person feels to be in communion with a wholly other. The numinous experience can lead in
different cases to belief in deities, the supernatural, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent.
Mystery: A mystery is generally described as something that is difficult to explain or
understand. But ‘mystery’ could also mean that which is known and unknown at the same time
since the experiencer of a mystery is deeply involved in it without being able to objectify it, e.g.,
life, evil, etc.

2.8 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Forman, Robert K. C. Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1999.
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. New York:
Mentor, Penguin Books, 1958.

10
Hick, John. "Religious Faith as Experiencing-As," in God and the Universe of Faiths,. London:
Macmillan, 1973, pp. 37-52.
Hick, John. An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989. pp. 129-71.
Karuvelil, George. "Religious Experience and the Problem of Access," in Romancing the
Sacred? Towards an Indian Christian Philosophy of Religion, edited by George
Karuvelil. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2007.
Katz, Steven T. "Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism." In Mysticism and Philosophical
Analysis, edited by Steven T. Katz, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pp. 22-72.
Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the
Divine and Its Relation to the Rational, Translated by John W. Harvey. Oxford: OUP,
1923. Reprint, 1936.
Stace, Walter T. The Teachings of the Mystics. New York and Toronto: The New American
Library, 1960, pp.10-29.

2.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check your progress I

1. Our understanding would be considered adequate if it identifies at least some characteristic
features of religious experience in general. These features should be general enough because if
we identify religious experience with Nirvana of the Buddhists, for example, we would be
neglecting experiences that are typical of other traditions. Secondly, our understanding must pick
out the typical of religious experience alone. In other words, it should not be so broad and
general as to apply to other, non-religious experiences. If we identify religious experience with
ecstasy and bliss, for example, such experiences might as well be induced by drugs and alcohol,
but it may not have any features that religious people consider essential to religious experience.

2. When we think of religions the first thing that is likely to come to our mind are the temples,
mosques and churches that dot our land. But when we think about them a little more we begin to
realize that temples and mosques and churches are merely the tip of the icebergs that we call
religions. It is merely one of the many observable, external aspects. There are also others. These
external dimensions of religions can generally be brought under 4 Cs:
• Creed (beliefs systems and doctrines),
• Code (rules of conduct, some of which may even seem unethical to outsiders),
• Cult (worship and adoration, yajna, and so on).
• Community (some religions emphasize this dimension more than the others).

11
 These visible, external, aspects of religions can be studied under various disciplines such as
anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, psychology, and so on.

Check your progress II

1. An experience is an object or an event which enters into our consciousness. But a little more
reflection would show that this definition is still not correct. Therefore we need to qualify our
statement further by adding a third element to our definition of experience, namely directness.
Experience, then, is direct or immediate awareness of an object or an event.

2. Schleiermacher had a deep personal sense of religion. Religious experience, for him, is the
“integrative element of human life and culture”. It is a feeling of absolute dependence on
something that is infinite, but manifesting itself in all that is finite.

Check your progress III

1. All these experiences make us aware of a twofold nature of reality: there is the natural world
that we are ordinarily aware and something “more” than the natural world that comes to our
awareness in these experiences alone. Secondly, there is some vague awareness about the nature
of this sacred reality. Some call this Sacred Reality “God,” others call this One reality Brahman,
still others find none of these substantive terms appropriate and therefore call it Sunyata. Thirdly,
there is an awareness of the wrongness of a given situation and an overcoming of that wrongness
by being connected to a larger reality that is hidden behind the natural covering. Fourthly,
although we relied on spontaneous experiences that occur without any prior preparation so as to
keep our understanding of religious experience broad enough, we should also be aware that most
religious experiences do involve some prior preparation in the form of practices like yoga and
meditation, regular prayer and interior silence, acts of worship and adoration.

12
 UNIT 3: SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION

Contents

3.0 Objectives
3.1 General Introduction
3.2 Sociology of Religion
3.3 Psychology of Religion
3.4 Let Us Sum Up
3.5. Key Words
3.6 Further Readings and References
3.7 Answers to Check Your Progress

3.0 OBJECTIVES

In this unit, we review the sociology and psychology of religion with a special emphasis on the
contributions made by the world’s most renowned sociologists and psychologists of religion. We
examine the general characteristics of the sociology and psychology of religion to have a better
grasp of the meaning and significance of religion in the world today.

By the end of this unit, you should be able to:

• Understand the concept of sociology of religion,
• Identify and put forward the main ideas of the major sociologists of religion, such as
Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber,
• Understand the concept of psychology of religion,
• Identify and present the main ideas of the major psychologists of religion, such as
William James, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.

3.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Religion is as old as humankind. It has been the subject matter of analysis and reflection right
from the beginning of human history. It is an ineradicable part of human nature whose sources
run much deeper than those of ordinary habits. There are, in fact, almost as many theories as
there are religious thinkers, or thinkers about religion. Religion is concerned with a ‘beyond’,
with man’s relation to and attitude towards that ‘beyond’. The human capacity for belief is
limitless in effect. It is this capacity along with its striking diversity and strangeness of the
beliefs and associated practices, which has stimulated the curiosity of many writers on religion,
especially sociologists and psychologists. The following pages are an attempt to recapture the

1
theoretical legacy of several scholars in the field of sociology and psychology who made
indelible marks in their analysis and assessment of religion.

3.2 SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

Introduction
The main nucleus of sociology of religion is the relationship that exists between religion and
society. It is the study of the beliefs, practices and organizational forms of religion using the
tools and methods of the discipline of sociology. Sociology as a discipline has been very
intimately associated with the study of religion ever since sociology surfaced as a distinct field in
the nineteenth century. The sociologists from the very beginning saw religion as a nearly
inseparable aspect of social organization, a necessary window to understanding the past and
present.

Sociology of religion is a scientific approach to religion, which tries to be empirical and

objective. The fundamental concern of sociologists of religion is to further understanding of the
role of religion in society, to analyze its significance and impact upon human history, and to
understand its diversity and the social forces and influences that shape it. In their objective
investigation of religion and society, they include the use of both quantitative methods (surveys,
polls, demographic and census analysis) and qualitative approaches (participant observation,
interviewing, analysis of archival, historical and documentary materials). Sociology of religion
studies every aspect of religion from what is believed to how individuals act while in worship
and while living out their declared convictions. The sociology of religion poses the question of
the role and significance of religion in general, as well as that of understanding the beliefs and
practices of particular groups and societies. Global religious pluralism and divergence, the nature
of religious cults and sects, the power of religion on racial, gender and sexuality issues, and the
consequence of the media and modern culture has on religious practices are all issues of interest
in sociology of religion.

Some Sociologists of Religion

Many sociologists ensured religion an immortal place among the celebrated branches of
sociology. Historically, the study of religion was central to the discipline of sociology with early
influential figures such as August Comte, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. Though there were
several sociologists of religion who made their indelible mark in history, we are going to study at
least three of these eminent thinkers.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857)

Auguste Comte was a French positivist, sociologist and philosopher. He coined the term
‘sociology’ and found his new science equally as religion and as science. His famous works are
Positive Philosophy and Positive Polity. Comte envisioned sociology not only as the queen of the
sciences but also as the scientific basis of the new religion of positivism, which would gradually
push all existing religions out of sight. He even tried to construct a religion of humanity in which
historical figures are worshipped according to their contribution towards the society.

2
In his Positive Philosophy, Comte set out his law of the three stages which states that in the
intellectual development of humanity there are three distinct stages, namely, theological,
metaphysical and positive. In the theological stage, the thoughts and ideas about reality are
essentially religious in nature. They are dominated by ideas that make reference to the
supernatural. The overriding belief is that all things are created by God.

The theological stage is further divided into three sub-stages. The first sub-stage is fetishism, in
which all things, even inanimate objects, are believed to be animated by a life or soul like that of
human beings. For Comte, this fact underlies all religious thought and is perfectly
understandable when seen in the context of early human development. The second sub-stage is
polytheism where material things are no longer seen as animated by an indwelling life or soul.
Matter is seen subject to the external will of a supernatural agent. The supernatural agencies are
increasingly seen as not attached to specific objects, but as manifesting in all objects of a
particular kind or belonging to a given category. A pantheon of gods and goddesses with power
to affect the world and human beings is worshipped and propitiated. At this stage, priesthood
emerges whose task is to mediate between the human realm and the gods. The third sub-stage is
monotheism. The process which led from fetishism to polytheism leads logically on to the last of
the sub-stage of the theological stage. It is characterized by the development of the great world
religions and the emergence of distinct religious organizations such as the Church. From this
monotheistic stage, human thought passes through the transitional metaphysical stage in which
spirits and deities give way to more speculative conceptions of general principles or forces which
rule reality.

The metaphysical stage is a transitional stage between the theological and positive stages.
Natural phenomena are explained and understood by likening them to human behavior. They are
seen as having a will and as acting intentionally. It is a belief that abstract forces like nature,
rather than personalized gods, explain virtually everything. The third stage is the positive or
scientific stage, dominated by the positive philosophy of science and industrial patterns of social
organization, dominated by industrial administrators and scientific moral guides. In this stage,
observation predominates over imagination.

Comte did not think that with the arrival of science, religion would disappear totally. According
to him, religion was not only an attempt to explain and understand reality but also the unifying
principle of human society. If a traditional religion were to vanish with the growth of science, it
would have to be replaced with a new form of religion based upon sound scientific principles. He
further states that since the science which is concerned with understanding the principles of
social unity and cohesion is sociology, then the new religion would be a kind of applied
sociology and the sociologist would be the high priest of this new secular creed. Comte was so
serious about his opinion that he even devised the robes and vestments that the sociological
priesthood would wear, the rituals they would perform and actually founded a Church of
Positivism. Comte believed religion to be a product of reason and of the human capacity to
generalize in an attempt to understand and explain the world.

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

Emile Durkheim is credited with making sociology a science, and is considered by many to be
one of the founding fathers of sociology. His important works include The Elementary Forms of

3
the Religious Life, The Rules of Sociological Method, The Division of Labor in Society and
Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Durkheim declared that religion originated in primitive man’s
absolute dependence upon his community and therefore his worship of it.

Durkheim defines religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things,
namely, things set apart and forbidden which unite into one single moral community all those
who adhere to them. Religion, therefore, has a community dimension and it entails a
congregation or Church. A basic distinction found here is between the sacred that includes all
phenomena which are set apart and forbidden, and the secular or the profane. Sacred things are
those things protected and isolated by prohibitions; while profane things are those things to
which such prohibitions apply and which must keep their distance from what is sacred. The
sacred is not defined by belief in gods or transcendent spirits. According to Durkheim, Sacred
things should not be taken to mean simply those personal beings we call gods or spirits. A rock, a
tree, a spring, a stone, a piece of wood, a house, in other words, anything at all, can be sacred.
This disparity does not even necessarily correspond to the distinction between good and evil. In
other words, sacred is not equal to good, and profane is not the same as evil. The list of sacred
objects cannot be fixed once and for all; it varies from religion to religion. But Durkheim also
admits that the profane may become sacred by means of rituals, and the sacred may become
profane through erosion of values or dislocation of the deities. The erosion or disappearance of
one set of the sacred is invariably followed by the appearance of new entities or states to which
the sacred status is granted.

Religious practices or rites are central to Durkheim’s conception of religion. He defines them as
rules of conduct that stipulate how one must conduct oneself with sacred things. According to
him, it is cults that enable believers to live and to act. In fact, anyone who has really practiced a
religion knows very well that it is the cult that evokes these impressions of joy, of inner peace, of
serenity, of enthusiasm, which the faithful retain as the experimental proof of their beliefs. The
cult is not simply a system of signs by which faith is articulated outwardly. It is a collection of
means by which it is created and periodically recreates itself. Thus, cults are cellular to religion
and constitutive to society inasmuch as society would weaken without it. Even the gods would
die if cults were not celebrated.

Max Weber (1864-1920)

Max Weber was an outstanding German classical theorist of sociology. Max Weber’s
scholarship in the world religions is proverbial. His most important works are The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (where he began his work in the field of sociology of religion),
Sociology of Religion and The Social Psychology of the World Religions. He argued that religion
was one of the non-exclusive reasons for the different ways the cultures of the West and the East
developed, and stressed that particular characteristics of ascetic Protestantism influenced the
development of capitalism, bureaucracy and the rational-legal state in the West.

Weber identifies three types of authority in the society: the charismatic, the traditional, and the
national bureaucratic. The first is the kind of authority that emanates directly from the great
individual, whether a Jesus in religion, a Caesar in warfare, or a Napoleon in war and
government. Such authority is inseparable from the life of an individual. Often, as in Judaism,
Christianity and Buddhism, the charismatic authority of the founder becomes ‘routinized’. The

4
words spoken by the founder eventually become tradition, dogma, injunction and liturgy. The
second type of authority is the result of cumulation through the centuries of certain sanctions or
admonitions or simple ways of doing things originally prescribed by some leader of charismatic
power. The third type of authority is a rationalized, calculated and a designed structure in which
the office or function becomes crucial rather than the individual. Weber and his followers see a
large part of history as involving the passage of authority from the charismatic to the traditional
to, finally, the rational-bureaucratic.

Weber has a tendency to see religious development in terms of ethical rationalization. According
to him, the increase of social complexity demands more laws and procedures. Such a need is met
by the emergence of professional priesthood. Unlike magicians concerned with achieving
concrete material results for clients, the concern of priests is with intellectual matters and with
the elaboration of doctrine which generally involves the development of ethical thought. Weber’s
concentration was not on religion as a stabilizing power, but on religion as a source of the
dynamics of social change. It is said that Weber spent much of his time studying religion. He
tried to synthesize the insights of previous theoretical approaches in religion especially
psychological and sociological. Weber made a distinction between magic and religion.
According to him, magic is fundamentally manipulative and tries to intimidate gods and spirits,
while religion involves worship of them. The gods and spirits of magic are more this worldly
while those of religion are transcendental.

Conclusion
Religion is quintessentially a social phenomenon. Though religion has a private dimension,
people experience religion in groups and movements. All the world’s great religions have created
and are sustained by large institutions. Religion is a fertile field for the study of deviance in the
strict sociological sense. A kind of symbiotic relationship exists between sociology and religion.
It should not be overlooked that in many areas religion, quite independently of currents in the
social sciences, took on a strong social consciousness.

It is true that many of the founding fathers of the social sciences believed religion would wither
in the face of rationality in the modern world. Further, some believed that it was the
responsibility of the new social sciences to hasten that process. However, contemporary
sociologists of religion generally make much more modest claims, than the founding generation.
Through the study of sociology of religion, an individual is brought to the awareness of the
enormous diversity of religious traditions; the tremendous impact of culture on religion; and the
reciprocal impact of religion on culture.

It should be noted that the study of sociology of religion is not an attack on religion. The realms
of the supernatural and that of values cannot legitimately be attacked by scientific tools. It is
neither an investigation of whether or not religious ideas are true. Again, it is not an attempt to
establish the significance or insignificance 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.

5
1. What do you understand by the expression ‘Sociology of Religion’?
……………………………………………………………………………………….……...
………………………………………………………………………………….…………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. Comment on the contributions made by Auguste Comte in the sociology of religion.

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

3. Comment on the contributions made by Emile Durkheim and Max Weber in the sociology of
religion.
……………………………………………………………………….……………………
……………………………………………………………….……………………………
……………………………………………………………………….……………………
……………………………………………………………….……………………………

3.3 PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION

Introduction
Psychology of religion is the psychological study of religious experiences, beliefs, practices and
activities. It should be observed that religion and psychology are not two parallel areas of human
life. Psychology is an academic discipline, while religion is a blanket term signifying the way of
life of individuals and communities, including doctrines, ethical codes, cultic practices and
community organization. It is far more than a field of study and research. The two fields of
religion and psychology are poles apart even in age-wise too. The major religions of the world
have thousands of years of recorded history. Compared to this, psychology is a mere child. It
began to develop as a distinct academic discipline just a century ago.

It is generally said that when psychology and religion congregate, there is always an
understandable excitement in the air, since both fields touch human beings at their deepest core.
However, it should be recorded that religion is not a major area of interest in psychology. Many
textbooks of psychology do not devote much attention to religious issues. In some cases, the
attitude is one of suspicion and even hostility. One is inclined to judge the prevailing attitude of
psychologists toward religion as one of guarded detachment or mild hostility. A better
understanding of the psychology of religion can be had when we examine the views of the
leading psychologists on religion.

Some Psychologists of Religion

6
Though religion is not a major concern of psychologists in general, there have been influential
contributions on religion by psychologists and its role in human life. Many psychologists of
religion have examined the changing role of religion both in the public arena as well as in
intimate interpersonal relationships. Given below are some psychologists of religion who have
taken many an individual towards the path of excitement through their analysis of religion from a
psychological point of view.

William James (1842-1910)

William James, an American psychologist and philosopher, is considered as the founder of the
field of psychology of religion. He tried to emphasize the notion of the individual self or person
as a continuous stream of ‘consciousness’ capable of exercising free will. James’ important work
is The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, which is regarded as a
classic work in the field of psychology of religion. It was one of the first studies on religious
experience by a psychologist. His other important works include The Principles of Psychology,
The Will to Believe, A Pluralistic Universe, and Some Problems of Philosophy. James was
convinced that there was something in human consciousness different from the particular
sensations.

He made a distinction between institutional religion and personal religion. The institutional
religion refers to the religious group or organization, which plays an important role in the ethos
and culture of a society. Personal religion, on the other hand, is where one opens oneself to
mystical experiences. James was most interested in understanding personal religious experience.
In studying personal religious experiences, he made a distinction between healthy-minded and
sick-souled religiousness. Those individuals who are predisposed to healthy-mindedness have a
tendency to overlook the phenomenon of evil in the world and focus on the positive elements.
On the contrary, those who are predisposed to having a sick-souled religion are unable to ignore
evil and suffering, and often look for a unifying experience, religious or otherwise, in order to
reconcile both good and evil.

William James arrived at some crucial and relevant conclusions after his thorough analysis of
religious experience. First, irrespective of whether the theories of religion are true or absurd,
religious life is humankind’s most important function. A person’s religion becomes the deepest
and the wisest thing in his/her life. It brings people a great sense of power. Second, the personal
value and passion of religious experience will not convince others, but as thinkers we need to
study this phenomenon. Third, an impartial study of religions might sift out from the midst of
their discrepancies a common body of doctrine. Fourth, religious experience gives people also a
sense of there being something wrong with us and makes people want to reach out towards a
higher reality. Finally, in the fifth place, there is a struggle in human beings between a higher and
a lower, between a better and a worse part. People seem to glimpse something they call their
‘real being’.

According to him, any belief must remain an individual process and we may rationally choose to
believe some crucial propositions even though they lie beyond the reach of reason. He was of the
opinion that if an individual believes in and performs religious activities, and those actions
happen to work, then that practice appears to be the proper choice for that particular individual.

7
On the other hand, if the activities and processes of religion have little efficacy, then there is no
rationality for continuing such practice, as far as that particular individual is concerned. For
James, when the options of life are forced, then, human beings have a right to believe in
something which is beyond the evidence.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Sigmund Freud was born to Jewish parents in the town of Freiburg, in Germany. He was a
physiologist, medical doctor, psychologist and is considered as the father of psychoanalysis. He
was interested in the study of religion throughout his life. He provided explanations of the
genesis of religion in his various writings such as The Future of an Illusion, Civilization and Its
Discontents, Moses and Monotheism: Three Essays, and Totem and Taboo. However, the
doctrine on religion was only a minor part of his vast contribution. His major influence was in
the field of psychoanalysis.

But within the purview of religion, Freud is known for his critique of religion. He did not even
say that religious ideas are errors. However, he considered religions as ‘illusions’, because he
believed they were the results of mere human wishes rather than of rational inquiry. When he
spoke of religion as an illusion, he maintained that it is a fantasy structure from which an
individual must be set free if he/she is to grow to full maturity. He defines an illusion as any
belief, true or false, which is held not because there are good grounds for holding it but because
there is a strong desire or need to believe it. Religion is a form of wish fulfillment or self-
delusion which derives from an overpowering will to believe, a will which is stronger than
reason.

Freud considered religious practices as neurotic. Religion was an expression of underlying

psychological neuroses and distress. He saw religious ritual as similar to the obsessional neurotic
behavior of patients who did things for no apparent reason. He believed in a sort of phylogenetic
theory of religion by accepting a kind of patricide theory of some anthropologists. It is about the
sons who kill their tyrannical father and later, smitten by remorse worship him. This is also
known as the Oedipus complex, which, for Freud is the basis of societal and religious
functioning. He was convinced that any type of authoritarian religion is dysfunctional and it
alienates an individual from himself/herself.

Regarding the origin of religion, Freud remarked that when people feel frightened before the
powers of nature, the following possible reactions could evolve: first, the humanization of nature
wherein these powers are imagined to be powers like themselves; and second, giving these
powers the characteristics of a father. Consequently, gods are created to exorcise the terror of
nature and to reconcile human beings to the cruelty of fate especially death.

Carl Jung (1875-1961)

Carl Gustav Jung, a well-known Swiss psychoanalyst, is noted for his study of archetypes and
the impact of religion on the individual’s life. Archetypes are basic images that are universal
which reappear regardless of culture. According to him, the collective unconscious is the
storehouse of human experience which contains archetypes. The irruption of these images from
the unconscious into the dominion of consciousness is the foundation of an individual’s religious
experience. His major work is Psychology and Religion.

8
As a psychologist of religion, he has influenced several branches of research, especially
transpersonal psychology. Jung does not admit or deny the truth claims of religious doctrines. In
other words, he regarded the question of the existence of God to be unanswerable by the
psychologist and adopted a kind of agnosticism. According to him, what matters is the
‘psychological truth’ or a statement, that is, the part played by this belief in an individual’s life.

In Psychology and Religion he says that no one can know what the ultimate things really are.
One has to take them as one experiences them. If such an experience helps to make one’s life
healthier, more beautiful, more complete and more satisfactory to oneself and to those one loves,
then, one can safely say: this was the grace of God. In his analytic psychology, Jung maintains
that religion, which is an essential psychological function, symbolizes a deeper dimension of
human existence, a vital layer of the psyche, recognition and integration of which are said to
facilitate a harmonious and balanced human life. He further argues that it is the neglect of
religion which would lead individuals into neurotic behaviour patterns, adversely affecting even
the human species as a whole.

Conclusion
Psychology of religion is relevant in the sense that religion is very important for many people
and secondly, religion and the life of an individual influence each other in an evident manner.
Religious values influence their actions and religious meanings help them interpret their
experiences. There are many more prominent psychologists who contributed much to the field of
psychology of religion, such as Rudolf Otto, Erich Fromm, Erik H. Erikson, Gordon Allport, and
Alfred Adler. Their contributions have taken this field of study into higher planes of human
thought and practice.

One of the central focuses of psychology of religion should be individuals who must necessarily
be balanced, integrated and religiously oriented. This challenges an individual to be open,
tolerant, and constructive approach towards the religious reality. It should result in the process of
integration or wholeness both at the personal as well as societal levels.

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. What do you understand by the expression ‘Psychology of Religion’?

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

2. Comment on the contributions made by William James in the psychology of religion.

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

9
……………………………………………………………….……………………………

3. Comment on the contributions made by Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung in the psychology of
religion.
……………………………………………………………………….……………………
…………………………………………………………………….………………………………
……………………………………………………………….……………………
……………………………………………………………….……………………………

3.4 LET US SUM UP

Most human beings on the face of the earth are religious by nature or by nurture with specific
differences regarding the way they look at their particular faith traditions. Many are passionately
involved in a divine centrality in their life and are ultimately concerned with moulding a life in
accordance with its dynamics. Sociology and psychology play a vital role in the re-making of
this divine centrality in the life of individuals. At the same time, it is becoming ever more
apparent that religion has many strands and contradictory features. Religion has to be understood
in newer categories in the present-day context. Keeping up with the new visibility of religion in
different contexts of today is one of the central tasks of sociology of religion as well as
psychology of religion. Another challenge that is placed before sociology and psychology is a
careful analysis of the phenomenon of religion, at the same time, avoiding simplistic or
reductionist explanations.

It should be noted that today, the ‘sacred’ flourishes anew and in varied forms. New religious
movements make their appearance, ‘other faiths’ flourish along with the phenomenon of global
immigration and movement, the New Age has its devotees, and ‘spirituality’ continues its bid to
replace institutional religion as the way to move into the depths where the technological society
cannot reach. Religion seems to be still mired deep in trouble. When, religion, human kind’s
oldest and probably deepest concern, is willing to face the challenges and insights of sociology
and psychology, the results can be expected to be abounding and contentious, challenging and
profound.

3.5 KEY WORDS

Theology: Theology is the study of a religion based on God’s revelation accepted in faith.
Reductionism: Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of
complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more
fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum
of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.
Neuroses: Neurosis is a psychiatric term that refers to a class of functional mental disorder
involving distress but not delusions or hallucinations, where behavior is not outside socially
acceptable norms. It is also known as psychoneurosis or neurotic disorder. The term continues to
be employed in psychoanalytic theory and practice.

3.6 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

10
Books:

Hamilton, Malcolm. The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives.

London: Routledge, 1995.

Johnstone, Ronald L. Religion and Society in Interaction. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975.

Koonan, Thomas. Priests and Society: A Sociological Study of the Prospects and Challenges.
Bangalore: Kristu Jyoti Publications, 2005.

Malony, H. Newton (ed.). Current Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion. Michigan:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977.

McGuire, Meredith B. Religion: The Social Context. California: Wadsworth Thomson

Learning, 2002.

O’Dea, Thomas F. The Sociology of Religion. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India, 1969.

Robinson, Rowena (ed.). Sociology of Religion in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2004.

Scharf, Betty R. The Sociological Study of Religion. London: Hutchinson University Library,
1973.

Vernon, Glenn M. Sociology of Religion. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962.

Weber, Max. The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1956.

Articles:

Davis, Winston, “Sociology: Sociology of Religion”, Encyclopedia of Religion (2nd edn.),

Lindsay Jones (ed.), Vol. XII, pp. 8490-8497.

Mannath, Joe. “How Do Contemporary Psychologists See Religion?”, Journal of Dharma,

XXIII, No. 2, 1998, pp. 266-288.

Parsons, William B. “Psychology: Psychology of Religion”, Encyclopedia of Religion (2nd

edn.), Lindsay Jones (ed.), Vol. XI, pp. 7473-7481.

Nisbet, Robert. “Sociology: Sociology and Religion”, Encyclopedia of Religion (2nd edn.),
Lindsay Jones (ed.), Vol. XII, pp. 8480-8487.

3.7 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

11
Check Your Progress I
1. Sociology of religion is basically dealing with the relationship that exists between religion and
society. As a subject it refers to the study of the role of religion on society. It studies beliefs,
religious practices and organizational forms of a society using the sociological methods such as
surveys, polls, demographic and census analysis, interviews, participatory observation, analysis
of archival, historical and documentary materials. From all these, we try to understand the role of
religion in society, analyze its significance and its impact upon the shaping of human history.
Sociology of religion, as a subject, also deals with issues such as the impact of religion on racial,
gender and sexual discrimination, terrorism and religious pluralism.

2. Auguste Comte is a French philosopher, positivist and a sociologist. He is the one responsible
for coining the term ‘sociology’. He envisioned sociology to be the scientific basis for the new
religion of positivism which according to him would replace all existing religions. He observed
that human history would pass through three stages, namely, theological, metaphysical and
positive in a gradational manner. In the theological stage, the thoughts and ideas about reality are
essentially religious in nature. The metaphysical stage is a belief that abstract forces like nature,
rather than personalized gods, explain virtually everything. The positive stage is characterized by
scientific philosophy and scientific moral guides with a precedence given to observation instead
of imagination.

3. Emil Durkheim and Max Weber are two sociologists of religion who have contributed much to
the study of religion from a sociological perspective. Emil Durkheim is considered as one of the
founding fathers of sociology. He considered religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices
related to sacred things. According to him, religion has a community dimension and it is the
society which determines what is sacred and profane. All the more, these so called gods
determined by the community need not be permanent. For Durkheim, religious practices and
gifts are important, because it is these cults that enable people to live, act and conduct themselves
in the society. Durkheim is also considered as a person responsible for making sociology a
science. Max Weber is an outstanding German sociologist of religion. He regarded religion as
one of the non-exclusive reasons for the different ways the cultures of the West and the East
developed. He considered religion to be in a process of evolution in which it moves from a
charismatic stage through traditional to natural bureaucratic stage. The first stage emanates
directly from a great individual whose words and deeds eventually become dogma, injunctions,
liturgy and tradition for his followers. The second stage is the result of a cumulation down
through the centuries of certain injunctions or admonitions originally prescribed by some leaders.
The third stage is a rationalized, calculated and designed structure in which the office or function
is given preference to an individual.

Check Your Progress II

1. The psychological study of religious experiences, beliefs, practices and activities is termed as
psychology of religion. Psychology, as an academic discipline, is not very old in comparison to
religion. Psychology of religion tries to interpret the psychological meaning and patterns of
collective as well as individual religious contents and practices. It projects religion as something
that should pervade the inner recesses of human life which influences the ethos of an entire
people.

12
2. According to William James, the human person is a continuous stream of consciousness
capable of exercising free will. He made a distinction between institutional religions (organized
and structured religions) and personal religions where the individual opens himself / herself to
mystical experiences. For him, religion should be meant for pragmatic purposes. In other words,
if an individual believes in and performs religious activities, and those actions happen to work,
then, that practice appears to be reasonable. If on the other hand, the activities and processes of
religion have little efficacy, then there is no rationality for the individual in continuing such a
practice.

3. Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung have tried to analyze religion from a psychological point of
view in order to observe the contribution of religion on human behaviour. Freud was a strong
critic of religion. He considered religion as ‘illusion’ – the result of mere human wishes rather
than of rational inquiry. For him, religious practices were neurotic. According to him, religion
could be traced back to the period when people felt frightened of the natural powers and started
worshipping them under various names. Jung studied the impact of religion on the individual. He
did not admit or deny the truth-claims of religious doctrines. He believed that in psychology and
religion, no one can know what the ultimate things really are. For Jung, religion symbolized a
deeper dimension of human existence and integration which helps to harmonize human life.

13
UNIT 4 RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Contents

4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Reality of Plurality of Religions
4.3 The Marks of Plurality of Religions
4.4 Survey of Our Responses to Religious Plurality
4.5 Towards a Fellowship of Religions
4.6 Let Us Sum Up
4.7 Key Words
4.8 Further Reading and References.
4.9 Answers to Check Your Progress.

4.0 OBJECTIVES

In this unit we shall try to arrive at the following objectives:

• We shall try to understand the phenomenon of religious plurality with a special reference to
our country.
• We shall try to understand the impact of this phenomenon of religious plurality and its
challenge for an adequate response.
• We shall try to understand some responses to the phenomenon of religious plurality.
• We shall try to propose ‘pluralism’ as an adequate response to the phenomenon of religious
plurality.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Diversity is a lived experience. In our world, particularly in India, we experience diversity of

religions, cultures, world-views, languages and customs. India is not only a ‘melting pot’ of
diverse religions but a place of mutual interaction, dialogue and appreciation of everything plural
that forms the fabric of our country.

In this unit, we focus our attention on the experience of diversity of religions in our world and in
our country and try to understand how we can respond to this dynamic scenario that invites a
responsible and creative response. Today people of every religion in the light of their experience
of religious plurality are led to reflect on the question of diversity of religions. Why are there

1
many different religions? If God is one, why is there no one religion? How should these religions
relate to each other? Yes! No one can escape this and other similar questions.

4.2 THE REALITY OF PLURALITY OF RELIGIONS

The Experience of Plurality

The experience of plurality is an undeniable fact. We, as beings-in-a world, experience ourselves
as relating to a world that is embedded with rich and complex diversity. Within this complexity,
we experience a great variety of religions. This experience of otherness of various hues and
colours is inevitable and inescapable. We Indians are blessed with great model of unity in
diversity. Our country has displayed an amazing ability of accepting and letting diversity flower.
This diversity somehow manifests that there is no one meta-way of being an Indian. India has
always been a home of diversity and has a rich tradition of harmonious living in a dynamic
multicultural society. This characteristic openness to otherness is something our country shares
with Asia, which is a continent that bubbles with multiplicity of cultures, plurality of religious
traditions, languages and socio-political reality. Our country is a land of immense diversity. Her
diversity, which emerges from geography, is reflected in her history and confirmed by the
ethnography. Indian culture is therefore by definition a culture of multiplicities, a culture of
differences. It may be said that our country not merely tolerates differences, but protects, fosters
and celebrates diversity. There are more than 4000 different communities that make our country
their home and this diversity extends to religions, languages, cultural practices, dresses, cuisine,
levels of economic development, etc. What is ancient and what is most modern are to be found in
India side by side. That is why we say that there are many ways of being an Indian. Hence,
Amartya Sen says “In our heterogeneity and in our openness lies our pride not disgrace”.

Ethical Imperative of Plurality

The anubhava of plurality is inescapable. It challenges us to respond. On the one side there is a
tendency of absorption, domestication, totalization, and homogenization of the other into our
own categories. This means that the otherness of the other is often flattened down, rounded of its
sharp, rough surface and reduced to the same.

Emmanuel Levinas, a French Philosopher, brings home this insight when he points out that the
other is often totalized, and hence, the radical exteriority that characterizes genuine otherness is
lost and the other is merely included within a totality. True otherness can only be experienced in
a relation with a being beyond the totality. It is in the otherness, in the difference, in the plurality
that we can experience the being beyond totality. Thus otherness, difference and plurality are the
manifestation of the sacred. We might say that difference and plurality is divinely ordained. It is
in the horizon of otherness that has to be respected, valued and discerned; we can notice an
immanent order within the plurality of religions experiences. This is evident from our sacred
writings in our country that welcome every otherness when they say “Let good thoughts come
from all directions”. This ethos is grounded in a deep belief that every being belongs to the
family of God (Vasudeva Kuttumbakam). This belief brings about a deep respect to all religions
(Sarva Dharma Samanvaya) that is deeply enshrined into the secularism of our constitution. The
deep sense of interconnectedness that is embedded in the Vedic teachings or the tribal experience
of our people informs the Dharma of every Indian to work to build a nation which brings about

2
the welfare of all (loksangraha). This welfare is not restricted to humans alone, much less to a
caste or class of humans. Thus, we can see that the bedrock of our nationhood is our openness to
all beings.

The Experience of Plurality of Religions

The experience of plurality of religions is at the basis of every form of response to the
phenomenon of multiplicity of religions. Ordinarily, we all tend to subscribe to a belief that the
religion we adhere to enjoys the highest status in terms of truth and validity and so we seem to be
unable to question our critic, re-think our tradition from within. As a result the other religions
that we encounter are either refuted as mistaken or are interpreted in the light of the basic
principles evolving from the religions of our adherence. This attitude often becomes responsible
for separation, distrust and even warfare among religions. But today more and more enlightened
humans have come to realize that it is a sort of self-impoverishment to refuse to learn from,
differing ways of being human. Hence, our experience of plurality of religions teaches us that
diverse religions are basic expressions of different ways of being human. In our country, it
becomes a different way of being an Indian. There is no one way of being an Indian. Our unity in
diversity is at the heart our nationhood.

Check your progress I

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

1) Is India’s diversity a pride? Explain.

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
2) Write a short note on religious plurality and different ways of being human

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................

4.3 THE MARKS OF PLURALITY OF RELIGIONS

Other Religions as Bridges

Often the other religions were perceived as boundaries and humans took upon themselves as
their duty to guard the purity of their religions. A cursory glance of the history of religions
reveals a painful narrative of religious violence. The claim of a particular religion to be the only
true religion is among other factors that instigate and generate religious violence. Some analysts
trace the roots of religious violence to the ‘religious’ following of the well-known theory of
Rene-Girard who presents his argument with an analysis of the role of violence in the
construction of human culture in general, and religious culture in particular. He teaches that
violence is mimesis or the desire to have what another one has. This leads to rivalry and conflict.
Since each one has desires violence threatens to pervade the group. At this time violence is

3
projected on a weaker person who is killed. She / he become a scapegoat and provide release
from the feeling of violence. Thus, he views religious rituals which are often bloody, as safe
detonation of the violent human impulse. Others view the phenomenon of religious violence as
complex irrupting in particular circumstances due to many factors that are often extra-religious.
These views refer to the abuse of religions for political as well as economic gains. But religions
have great resource to building peace and harmony in a violence-ridden world.

Decalogue of Assisi

1. We commit ourselves to proclaiming our firm conviction that violence and terrorism are
incompatible with the authentic spirit of religion, and as we condemn every recourse to
violence and war in the name of God or religion, we commit ourselves to doing
everything possible to eliminate the root cause of terrorism.
2. We commit ourselves to educating people to mutual respect and esteem in order to help
bring about a peaceful and fraternal co-existence between people of different ethnic
groups, cultures and religions.
3. We commit ourselves to fostering the culture of dialogue, so that there will be an increase
of understanding and mutual trust between individuals and among peoples, for these are
the premises of authentic peace.
4. We commit ourselves to defending the right of everyone to live a decent life in
accordance with their own cultural identity and to form freely a family of their own.
5. We commit ourselves to frank and patient dialogue, refusing to consider our differences
as an insurmountable barrier, but recognizing instead that to encounter the diversity of
others can become an opportunity for greater reciprocal understanding.
6. We commit ourselves to forgiving one another for past and present errors and prejudices,
and to supporting one another in a common effort both to overcome selfishness and
arrogance, hatred and violence, and to learn from the past that peace without justice is not
true peace.
7. We commit ourselves to taking the side of the poor and the helpless, to speaking up for
those who have no voice and to working effectively to change these situations, out of the
conviction that no one can be happy alone.
8. We commit ourselves to taking up the cry of those who refuse to be resigned to violence
and evil, and we desire to make every effort possible to offer the men and women of our
time real hope for justice and peace.
9. We commit ourselves to encouraging all efforts to promote friendship between peoples.
For we are convinced that, in the absence of solidarity and understanding between
peoples, technological progress exposes that world to a growing risk of destruction and
death.
10. We commit ourselves to urging the leaders of nations to make every effort to create and
consolidate, on the national and international levels, a world of solidarity and peace based
on justice.

There is no doubt that religions have a great potential to develop peace and harmony. For
instance, Christianity speaks of every human being as a child of God created in the image and
likeness of God. Islam considers humans as vice-gerents of Allah. Hindus evoke the presence of
the divine in the human in an Advaitic (non-dual) perspective, the Buddha nature latent in every

4
human being, and the Jains stand on the ground of Ahimsa or non-violence. These and other
values flowering in our religious traditions have the great potential that can promote peace and
harmony in our world. Hence, religions need to explore the possibilities of setting free these
potentials for building peace and harmony. Inter-religious dialogue needs to become the order of
the day at the service of peace.

Religions Serve Humans

We have seen that different religions are different ways of being humans in the world. Hence, the
presence of difference, diversity, and otherness draws us to respond respectively and
collaboratively. This calls for an attitude of openness and recognition of difference. The
religious other is recognized, affirmed and accepted. This presupposes the acceptance of the right
of the religious other to be (exist) and to be different. The theist tends to accept difference as
divinely intended and as such cannot be domesticated, absorbed and erased into the same. Non-
theists accept difference on the strength of the richness of diversity of reality as such. Yet there
is religious intolerance springing in certain theists as well as non-theist religious circles.
Fortunately, there is world-wide realization that our religious other is first of all a human person.
Hence, any interaction whether favourable or unfavourable always takes place among people. It
is always real flesh and blood human beings that engage in meaningful dialogue or mindless
confrontation. Hence, it is of prime importance to realize that before we are Hindus, Muslims,
Buddhists, Christians, Jains, and Sikhs, we are humans. This realization is deeply connected to
the prospects of peace in our world. Therefore, inter-religious dialogue becomes an important
weapon of building peace and harmony. Religious traditions that care for the well-being of
society cannot fail to realize the crucial importance of harmony and understanding among the
religious groups. Religious groups as social units wield power and their actions affect positively
or negatively other religions groups or units in society. This means the fact of being religious
does not force them out of the social sphere. Hence, religious traditions have a great
responsibility of being self critical. This is often neglected as the religious traditions are
engrossed in projecting their noblest images and doctrines. Hence, religious traditions have to
conduct a realistic and genuine assessment of their actual state, and role they play or fail to play
in the contemporary situation of a society. This will keep religious traditions in touch with actual
life and everyday experience. It is only when we have religious traditions that are self-critical
that our religions will promote sarva-jiva-sukham, happiness to all living beings.

The Irreducibility of Religious Experience

John Hick, a British thinker, relies on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s discussion of family-resemblance
and attempts to understand plurality of religions. Wittgenstein took the example of games to
drive home his notion of family-resemblance. We have different types of games: ball games,
card games, games played with sports equipments etc. Some are solitary, others are competitive,
and others are played in turns. But all these activities are called games.

Hick derives from the above discussion a way of understanding religions. He says that the
different religions form ‘a complex continuum of resemblances and difference analogous to
those found within a family’. The above concept of religion has its merits, but it might appear to
do violence to difference and diversity that we notice among religions. Michael LaFargue and
Mark Heim seem to overcome these pitfalls when they view religious faith as an experience of
some good, and the experiences are distinctive in each religion. God, Nirvana, Tao, etc have

5
irreducible different meanings. Thus, religions are different systems of meanings built around
such distinctive experiences. It is the diversity and irreducibility of religious experience that is
the heart of plurality of religions.

Check your progress II

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

1) How did Wittgenstein influence John Hick’s thinking on Religious pluralism?

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) How do religions serve humans?
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

4.4 SURVEY OF OUR RESPONSES TO RELIGIOUS PLURALITY

The experience of religious pluralism has evoked multiple responses across the world. Alan Race
(1983), evaluating the Christian response to religious diversity, coined the threefold Typology:
Exclusivism-inclusivism and Pluralism in his book, Christianity and Religious Pluralism:
Patterns in Christian Theology. But this classification of the various responses has many
limitations and one might trace them simultaneously among different members of the same
community at the same time. Keeping this in our mind, we shall try to portray different
approaches to religious plurality gathering them under four groups. The atheist/naturalist
approach, the exclusivist approach, the inclusivist approach, and the pluralist approach.

The Atheist / Naturalist Approach

Hans Küng presents the position of the atheist views on both religion and religious diversity as
‘no religion is true. Or else: all religions are equally untrue’ Quinn takes reductive naturalism as
an option by which he seems to explain away all religions as ‘products of merely human
projection mechanism.’ Thus, he successfully reduces all religious diversity to non-religious
factors. We can notice a naturalistic interpretation of religious phenomena in many western
thinkers like Feuerbach, Freud, Durkheim and their successors. This naturalist/atheist approach
manifests a clear bias against religion.

The Exclusivist Approach

The term ‘exclusivism’ is etymologically derived from the Latin verb ex-claudere, which means
to shut out. Persons who hold exclusivism are those who believe that there can be only one true
religion and that is ones own. We might trace doctrinal exclusivists or soteriological exclusivists
among those who adhere to exclusivism. Doctrinal exclusivists are those who view that the
doctrines of our religions are completely true and the doctrines of all others are false.
Soteriological exclusivists view that only one religion offers effective path to salvation or

6
liberation. John Hick views such an exclusivist position as unfair, objectionable and opines that it
stems from parochial egotism.

The Inclusivist Approach

The inclusivists present one tradition as having the final truth and are an effective way of
salvation or liberation while other traditions, instead of being regarded as worthless or demonic
are seen to reflect aspects of or to constitute approaches to the final truth or salvation. Among the
Christians, this approach becomes an attempt to hold together the two axioms of ‘universal
salvific will of God’ and ‘salvation’ through God in Christ alone. We can find this position
among J.N.Farquhar, Karl Rahner, Gavin Costa and others.

The Pluralistic Approach

The pluralistic perspective maintains that all religions are equally valid paths to God / ultimate
reality / the sacred or salvation. Pluralistic approach is greeted as the only adequate model for
inter-religious relations. John Hick, Mark Heim, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Paul Knitter, Stanley J.
Samartha, Leonard Swidler, Raimon Panikkar, are some of the important exponents of religious
pluralism. Although each of them has one’s differences yet all of them agree that different
religions are diverse means of knowing and experiencing God/ the Really Real and / or ultimate
liberation or meaning of life in a culturally, historically and linguistically conditioned manner.

John Hick, for instance, identifies the philosophical theory of religious pluralism as “the theory
that the great world religions constitute variant conceptions and perceptions of and responses to
the one ultimate, mysterious divine reality and within each of them independently the
transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to reality-centeredness is taking place.
Thus the great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative salvific ‘spaces’ within which
or ‘ways’ along which men and women can find salvation, liberation and fulfillment”.

Mark Heim has a different approach towards religious pluralism. Mark Heim takes his religious
pluralism to its logical conclusion. He states that all religions are real alternatives, with each
having its own distinct religious fulfillment. Hick seems to propose that all religions finally serve
one end. Mark Heim seems to propose that all religions serve multiple ends. Thus, Heim rejects
‘unitive pluralism’ of Hick. Unitive pluralism again is guilty of holding that there is one effective
religious goal. This is achieved by somehow disregarding all the empirical and
phenomenological elements of religions as extrinsic and accidental to the true, core and essential
dimension that is somehow thought to be common to all religious traditions. Heim finds this
homogenizing tendency of unitive pluralism not free from the hegemony of exclusivism or
inclusivism. He says exclusivism, incluvisim and unitive pluralism are imperialistic. The
difference is only in degree. He intends to recognize the integrity of religious traditions in their
own terms. He finds that this approach can recognize the truth or validity as well as difference
across the diverse religions. We have already seen that he has rejected the pluralistic theories that
claim to transcend confessional particularity and provide a unique level of religious core
common to all religions in a ‘no-man’s-land.’

Hence, Heim is modest in his claims. For him religious pluralism will have to be among other
religious commitments and perspectives, and not above them. He bases his position on the views

7
of Nicholas Rescher and finds a theory that will somehow respond to religious pluralism
adequately. Rescher calls his view as orientational pluralism in his work, The Strife of Systems.
He rejects three possible philosophical responses to plurality: (1) one response he calls the
‘unique reality view’: reality has a determinate character and only one of the competing
descriptions can be rationally adequate; (2) another response he calls the ‘no-reality view’: there
is no ultimate reality or at least none that can be known. Therefore, philosophical truth-problems
are pseudo-problems, which need to be reconceived, not answered or argued. The task of the
philosopher is to lead people out of their bondage in this mirage; (3)and a third response is
‘multifaceted reality view’: each competing view gives truth, but none gives the whole. He
quotes Good-man to make this point “there is no one way the world is, but there are ways the
world is”. The inadequacy of each view makes it possible for us to think that an all-inclusive
view is possible to arrive through accumulation of all. Rejecting the three positions we have just
discussed, Rescher advocates what he calls orientational pluralism. It accepts that one and only
one perspective is appropriate from a given perspective, but we must recognize that there is
diversity of perspectives. The distinctive thing about Reschers’ view is that a practicing
philosopher naturally proceeds by inclining to the unique reality view. Argument and inquiry can
operate only from a perspective. From a given perspective there is ultimately one rationally
defensible

Rescher advocates the irreducible plurality, and holds that perspectives cannot be combined.
Heim recognizes orientational pluralism as the only authentic response to pluralism since it
allows us to recognize a religious view as one among many and at the same time maintains its
own ‘universal claim’. This means orientational pluralism accepts the validity and universal
claim of other religious tradition while at the same time upholding the preferable validity and
universal claim of ones our religious tradition. Thus others are justified to hold views that are
contrasting to ours. This is a kind of pluralistic inclusivism.

4.5 TOWARDS A FELLOWSHIP OF RELIGIONS

S. J. Samartha says that just after India’s political independence in 1947, despites the fresh
memories of how the country was fragmented on religious lines, in the constituent assembly,
working on a constitution for the republic of India, there was a suggestion to erase the words “to
profess, practice and propagate as a fundamental right of the minority communities. But one can
notice an amazing spirit of broad-mindedness and a spirit of tolerance among the founding
fathers of our constitution towards the minority communities. Hence, arrogant claims of
normativeness of a single monolithic religious tradition are very much against the spirit of our
constitution.

Religious pluralism is not just constitutionally upheld, it is also religiously dignified, especially
by the Hindu mainstream religion in our country.

The Hindu (Vedic / Vedantic) view of religious pluralism could be summarized thus:

8
 1. The One Absolute Reality is nirguna Brahman (beyond words and concepts, beyond
nama-rupa, beyond knowledge and experience). Response to this reality is silence.
Brahman is silence!
2. The highest metaphysical categories through which the One Absolute Reality is thought
of are sat-cit-ananda. (Saccidananda Brahman is saguna Brahman). Response to this
Reality is mystical realization of the oneness of Atman and Brahman.
3. When the One Absolute Reality is conceived as a Personal God, it is thought of as Father,
Mother, Lord, Master, Creator, Preserver, Destroyer, All-knowing, All-powerful, etc. All
religions can address the Ultimate Reality with these Personal attributes and yet know no
division. Response to this Personal God is love, and loving surrender.
4. When the One Absolute Reality is given sectarian personal names, “individuation” takes
place in the Ultimate Reality, or rather; division takes place in Human Consciousness
regarding the One Absolute Reality. (E.g. Yahweh (Jew). Allah (Muslim), Shiva, Vishnu,
(Hindu), etc.). This individuation gives rise to Religious Pluralism, each religion with its
own ritual, myth, doctrine, ethics, social structures, and personal/mystical experience.
Response to this Reality could be faithfulness and worship, tolerance and co-existence,
respect and love for all.
5. The One Absolute Reality takes upon itself limitations so as to make it available to
human beings: avataras incarnations, manifestations. Human beings build up Images,
Statues, Idols, Sacred Places, Sacred Objects, Temples, Mosques, and Churches, etc. The
Personal God takes more and more anthropomorphic character. Response to these
Incarnations is in terms of worship and rituals, defensive and apologetic, emergence of
sub-sects, ritualism, clericalism, etc.
6. When worshippers of the (i.e. when one religion tries to impose its theology, worship,
image of God, etc. over others), intolerance and conflicts happen between Religions
aiming at extermination of other gods and religions.

Hence, religious pluralism that we have seen above is mainly of inclusivist shape and form. Our
country also exhibits the pluralist form of religious pluralism. The Syad Vada of the Jains is one
important form that can generate plural religious pluralism. Pluralism has several values to a
contemporary world.

1. It provides spiritual and cultural resources for the survival of different people in their
search for freedom, self-respect and human dignity. When nations and peoples are
politically dominated, economically exploited and militarily intimidated what else do
they have for the survival of their spirit except their religions and cultures which can
never be taken away from them?
2. A plurality of religions, cultures, ethnic groups and languages can be a guarantee against
fascism because it will resist the imposition of any “one and only” religion or ideology on
all people.
3. Pluralism introduces an element of choice by providing alternative visions of reality and
ways of life.
4. Plurality provides multiple spiritual resources to tackle basic problems which have
become global today. The availability of many resources to tackle these problems should
not be looked upon with suspicion but accepted with gratefulness. People in mono-
religious situations are becoming a little more pluralist.

9
4.6 LET US SUM UP

An adequate and human response to the phenomena of plurality is indeed urgent for the peace
and harmony in the world. The peace in the world depends on the peace among religions. Hence,
religious pluralism becomes an important way of dealing with our experience of plurality of
religions.

Check your progress III

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

1) How do exclusivists approach the concept of religious pluralism?

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

4.7 KEY WORDS

Ethnography: Ethnography is a kind of writing that uses fieldwork to provide a descriptive

study of human societies. Ethnography presents the results of a holistic research method founded
on the idea that a system’s properties cannot necessarily be accurately understood independently
of each other.

Culture: Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning “to cultivate”) is most
commonly used in three basic senses: 1.excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities; 2. an
integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for
symbolic thought and social learning; 3. and the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and
practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

Parochialism: The term parochial can be applied in both culture and economics if a local culture
or a local government makes decisions based on solely local interests that do not take into
account the effect of the decision on the wider community.

4.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check your progress I
1) Our country is a land of immense diversity. Her diversity emerges from geography reflected in
her history and confirmed by the ethnography. Indian culture is therefore by definition a culture
of multiplicities, a culture of differences. It may be said that our country not merely tolerates
differences, but protects, fosters and celebrates diversity. There are more that 4000 different
communities that make our country their home and this diversity extends to religions, languages,
cultures, practices, dresses, cuisine, levels of economic developments, etc. What is ancient and
what is most modern are to be found in India side by side. That is why we say that there are

10
many ways of being an Indian. Hence, Amartya Sen says “In our heterogeneity and in our
openness lies our pride, not disgrace”.
2) The experience of plurality of religions is at the basis of every form of response to the
phenomenon multiplicity of religions. We might all agree that every religion has always been
aware of its religious ‘other’ or that religions are plural or that there are other religions, other
than one’s own. This consciousness of plurality has evoked diverse responses from various
religions. Hence, the fundamental experience of plurality of religions becomes an imperative that
generates authentic dialogical encounters as well as extremist fanatic exclusivist responses. This
experience of plurality is indeed foundational because it poses very difficult and relevant
questions. How can persons and communities with radically differing conceptions of the world,
human life and God come to the understanding and appreciation of each others ways of being
human? How with all our diversities, can we humans learn to live together peacefully and engage
fruitfully in a complexly interconnected world? These questions are of special importance for us
in our country and the response to them can build or destroy our nation.

Check your progress II

1) John Hick, a British thinker, relies on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s discussion of family-
resemblance and attempts to understand plurality of religions. Wittgenstein took the example of
games to drive home his notion of family-resemblance. We have different types of games: ball
games, card games, games played with sports equipments etc. Some are solitary, others are
competitive, and others are played in turns. But all these activities are called games. Hick derives
from the above discussion a way of understanding religions. He says that the different religions
form ‘a complex continuum of resemblances and differences analogous to those found within a
family’. The above concept of religion has its merits, but it might appear to do violence to
difference and diversity that we notice among religions.
2) Different religions are different ways of being humans in the world. Hence, the presence of
difference, diversity, and otherness draws us to respond respectively and collaboratively. This
calls for an attitude of openness and recognition of difference. The religious other is recognized,
affirmed and accepted. This presupposes the acceptance of the right of the religious other to be
(exist) and to be different. The theist tends to accept difference as divinely intended and as such
cannot be domesticated, absorbed and erased into the same. Non-theists accept difference on the
strength of the richness of diversity of reality as such. Yet there is religious intolerance
springing in certain theists as well as non-theist religious circles. Fortunately, there is the world
wide realization that our religious other is first of all a human person. Hence, any interaction,
whether favourable or unfavourable, always takes place among people. Hence, it is of prime
importance to realize that before we are Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jains, and
Sikhs, etc., we are humans.

Check your progress III

1) The term ‘exclusivism’ is etymologically derived from the Latin verb ex-claudere, which
means to shut out. Persons who hold exclusivism are those who believe that there can be only
one true religion and that is one’s own. We might trace doctrinal exclusivists or soteriological
exclusivists among those who adhere to exclusivism. Doctrinal exclusivists are those who view
that the doctrines of our religions are completely true and the doctrines of all others are false.
Soteriological exclusivists view that only one religion offers effective path to salvation or

11
liberation. John Hick views such an exclusivist position as unfair, objectionable and opines that it
stems from parochial egotism.

12