In his essay, William Cavanaugh states that “the inability to define ‘religion’ has been called ‘almost an article of methodological dogma’ in the field of religious studies.” He explains how, for a long time (and even now), religion has been given various definitions, and then is weaponized based on those definitions in order to argue against it. To me, religion is simply a belief system held by an individual or group of people. I realize that this definition is very broad. Many times, the term “religion” is associated with belief in a god/deity/higher being. While this does fall under my definition of religion, it is not the only way to define it. As Cavanaugh points out, when religion is defined this broadly, many different belief systems may fall under it (the example that he discusses is nationalism). He explores the question of why people will label denominations such as Catholicism or Jehovah’s witnesses as religion, but won’t acknowledge the religious-like qualities of belief systems such as nationalism. Of course there are plenty of differences between these things, but I think the answer is quite clear. Because the term “religion” is often loosely defined (and its definition can be warped in many different ways), people are able to use it in pretty much whichever way they want. People will distinguish between religion in terms of God and religion in terms of, say, pride in one’s country because of the nature of secular systems of belief. Again, religion is often associated with belief in a god, so the secular belief that comes with nationalism falls outside of many people’s preconceived notions of what religion is. This allows “religion” in this sense to be labelled as something completely separate from more “intellectual” ideals (science, nationalism, etc.), when in fact, religion actually encompasses these belief systems and allows for them to be expanded upon.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Caroline's Blog 
I like how you touched on the complexity of defining religion, especially when there are so many different ways of interpreting it. At the end, you mentioned that religion is labelled as something separate from more factual disciplines – in what ways do you see religion contributing to fields in science and politics? Is there any way for them to coexist without constantly undermining the other?
LikeLike
You clearly have a very good grasp on the flexibility of the term “religion” and how it can be used different ways. You mentioned how it can applied to nearly any system of beliefs amongst a group of people. You differentiate between intellectuals and religious at the end. Do you think to be religious is to not be an intellectual?
LikeLike
I think your broad use of the term religion is good. However, after discussing beliefs in class and how faith in ultimately inevitable, with this definition, couldn’t every thing be classified as a religion? For example, me and many others believe that Notre Dame is the best university. Would that community with a common belief be defined as a religion?
LikeLike
I also talked about Cavanaugh’s comparison between religion and nationalism. I thought it was interesting to consider the similar qualities they share, as well as the differences in the way people view them. In their relation to violence, what did you think about Cavanaugh’s point that religious violence is not tolerated, while violence in the name of nationalism is highly respected?
LikeLike
I think it’s really interesting that you say that religion has the same fundamentals of belief as “intellectual” ideals. I also like your use of Cavanaugh’s nationalism example. Could nationalism actually fall under the category of religion, since there is not supernatural force at the center of it, and instead there is land and community?
LikeLike