Categorizing & Describing Religions
copyright 2001 Darren Witwer
Click for printable Word version
of this page
BeliefNet's Belief-o-matic Personality Quiz to
help you determine the religion most close to yours.
The first issue we need to address in discussing
religion is the definition of religion. There are a number
of problems that confront us. The first is the simple
fact that studying "World Religions" reveals very
quickly that religions are very different from each other.
Another less obvious problem is that nearly every
"religion" has at some point claimed that they do
not have a religion, but rather something else like faith, or
a way of life. “Religion” is often used as a negative
term, especially in the Twentieth Century. These
issues have more to do with semantic fashion than with academic
studies, and therefore do not have much importance to the issues
in this class. When
the term “religion” is used in this class, it does not have
any evaluative or pejorative meaning.
There is also the very profound problem of language
and intercultural misunderstanding. The word "religion"
itself is not something we find in all other languages. For
instance, in most modern cultures, religion is something that
occurs in a specific place and at a specific time—Sunday or
Friday night. In
other cultures, there is a more all-pervasive notion of religion
in which the distinction between secular and sacred is not so
clear.
The fourth main problem is that there are so many
different angles or perspectives from which we can study religion:
social sciences (history, anthropology, psychology, sociology),
philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology), aesthetics (examination
of the art and literature), ethics (questions of right &
wrong, and value), to name a few of the principal ones.
Lastly, even within these various approaches there are disagreements
as to the factors that define a religion. There are arguments
over whether this or that belief system is actually a religion.
Paul Tillich characterizes religious experience
in terms of "ultimate concern." One author of
a textbook I used in the past (Hutchison) explains religion
in terms of "ultimate valuation." He lists these
characteristics: Primacy, Pervasiveness, Holiness, Symbolic
Expression, Cult & Culture. One problem I see with
this definition is that we could easily question whether or
not most Americans are religious on the basis of these rather
strict terms. This definition also suggests that religion does
not exist at an individual level, but rather it requires a community
of like-minded believers. It is my opinion that postmodern
society has already made this an unnecessary, though common
defining point. The reason it is so important in Hutchison's
book, and traditional texts on "World Religions" is
the simple fact that religions have produced and continue to
define large groups of people, and we don't have time to examine
every individual's religious beliefs and practices.
The increasing fragmentation of spirituality and
the paradoxical solipsism & globalization (it isolates us
and connects us to the entire world at the same time) of the
Internet are leading people to create ever more personal and
eclectic religious views and lives. Easy access to huge
amounts of research and other beliefs is accelerating this process.
Furthermore, the Internet provides the ability for a few like-minded
individuals separated geographically to find each other to share
ideas. These themes represent the main thrust of
the material with which I intend to supplement the content of
this textbook. Yet, it should be clear that even the most
eclectic and individual religions have deep roots in these old,
traditional-cultural religions.
What is "Religion?"
Defining
religion is an important exercise for clarifying the boundaries
of this course. I prefer a more modest-but-broad
definition of religion as a system of beliefs about
ultimate reality that tend to influence behavior.
By this definition, a number of belief systems could be
considered religious that are not normally considered
so. For instance, we might speak, as did Nietzsche,
of the Religion of Science, which is based on metaphysical
assumptions about the nature of ultimate reality and unproven
assumptions about truth and knowledge. Religion
is then a function of metaphysical opinions about ultimate
reality (materialism, idealism, pantheism, animism, etc.)
upon which a method or manner of behavior is based.
These opinions and methods are usually systematized,
and they are usually shared among a group
of people. The main focus of the methods, or the
prescriptive aspect of a religion is usually
some form of morality or manners--how to interact with
other people, with nature, and with the Divine.
This connection between metaphysical assumptions and actions
is essential to my definition of religion. If it
doesn't affect actions, then it isn't a religion.
Religions
are identified by their commitment to one or more philosophical
positions regarding “ultimate reality,” the study of religions
also feeds into the branch of philosophy known as Metaphysics
or Ontology (what is the ultimate truth? What IS and what
is NOT?) Unlike philosophy, which is known for asking
questions, religion is perhaps most distinguished by the
fact that it offers answers to those profound questions.
Since
religions involve prescriptions for human behavior, the study
of religion always feeds into the branches of philosophy known
as Ethics and Aesthetics (what is good and desirable? What is
taboo? What is Holy? What is blasphemous?).
So,
religion begins with a description of ultimate
reality, which acts as a foundation for a set of prescriptions
of behavior. The only difference between it and
philosophy is that religion begins with assumed answers to the
questions asked by philosophers.
Classifying &
Categorizing Religions
In the syllabus I briefly discussed
the problems involved in grouping different religions together
into the same categories.
It is my experience that any scheme of categorization
can be very useful if you keep in mind the potential limitations.
Hutchison describes three basic types: Cosmic, Acosmic
and Historical. His
model works well in that the majority of religions fit into
one of his three groups pretty nicely.
However, the criteria by which he groups them put together
some rather divergent religions. The simplicity of the scheme means that various dimensions
are not accounted for.
There are many different ways to categorize religions
for the purposes of comparing them.
The following illustrations are slightly modified from
those by the late MJ Abhishaker of Normandale Community College.
(Communitas Vol. 3, No. 2 Spring 1990)
His
diagram also suggests two major divisions of religion: Historical
and Ahistorical. Given the usage of the term Historical
by Hutchison, I think that there is some potential confusion.
He describes Judeo-Christian and Islamic religion as
Historical (time is seen in a linear sense with a beginning
and end), while Buddhism and Hinduism are Acosmic (time is seen
as cyclical). The
term historical in Abhishaker's sense refers to the assumption
that they are the product of a process of development, whereas
the ahistorical religions are primary and fundamental, giving
rise to the others. Time
is not a central issue, especially in the notion of progress
toward a goal or Apocalypse. Hutchison uses the term historical
to refer to religions that view history in this linear sense
(Genesis to Apocalypse & Heavenly Kingdom).
In the next diagram Abhishaker applies the same
six-fold graphic arrangement. The Primal Religions are shown
in the lower left, and the Mystic Center is in the lower right
of the diagram. Notice that the image above implies that
each of the four principle historical forms around the outside
can have manifestations toward the center (Primal, Mystical).
For example, Tibetan Buddhism is a Primal form of Buddhism.
Santería and Voudou are Primal forms of Christianity. 
