Why is “religion” so hard to define? Scholars of religion weigh in

AURORA SILAVONG Staff Writer

To some, “religion” brings up memories of stained glass windows in a rainbow of colors and sermons in front of a gilded altar. To others, “religion” might remind them of brightly-painted temples and leaving behind offerings of food, money and all manners of other treasures.

Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes “religion.” It is nearly impossible to describe religion in a concise, but respectful, way. For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices.”

The matter is further complicated by attempts to define “religion” in legal and political terms for purposes of taxation, national security and the like. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion and sex, attempts to be as inclusive as possible by protecting all manner of beliefs concerning “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose and death.” These include beliefs that “seem illogical or unreasonable to others” and those that may be considered “fringe.” Protections are also extended toward those that profess no religion or even an aversion to religious practice.

While all these definitions try their best to include everyone, they oftentimes fall short. These shortcomings can be attributed, in part, to the dominance of Christianity in Europe and the Americas.

“Most of the reason for this challenge is that our English vocabulary of ‘religion’ and our Western understandings of what that category includes come from earlier Western views that Christianity is the model for the concept of religion and everything else is measured against it,” Christine Shepardson, head of the Department of Religious Studies, said.

“This, of course, meant that – by definition – other religions were seen to be lacking some important aspect(s) and were somehow lesser.”

Nontheistic faiths – that is, belief systems that do not generally venerate a central creator god or pantheon of gods – are a common victim of these imperfect methods of categorization. During World War II, Japanese Buddhists were considered a bigger security threat than their Christian brethren, and Buddhism as a whole was once considered a cult in mainstream American culture.

There is not a cure-all for this problem, as human belief is such a diverse concept. Even within religious sects, there are a variety of interpretations, and these beliefs are also subject to change due to time and migration.

Megan Bryson, associate head of the Department of Religious Studies, primarily studies Chi- nese religion and teaches classes on a range of Asian religions.

“One way we could potentially respond would be to discuss similar terms for something like ‘religion’ in different times and places to highlight the range of concepts that get flattened by the Protestant-centric English term ‘religion,’” Bryson said.

Bryson brought up the East Asian concepts of “jiao” and “kyo,” which are “teachings” in Mandarin and Japanese, respectively, that used to describe belief systems. In the nineteenth century, these terms were expanded into “zongjiao” and “shukyo” when scholars began translating texts from the West and encountered words for “religion,” for which they did not have a direct translation.

Using this method would allow for examining models of thought and belief that are not commonly considered religions in the western world, including philosophical models like Confucianism.

Even so, there may never be a proper way to define religion in a way that pays respect to everyone. Scholar Jonathan Z. Smith famously collected a list of over 50 definitions of religion offered by various thinkers. The best method, then, may be to approach religion not as something constrained by structural definitions, but as something open to the stunning multitude of human existence.