When trying to develop a formal definition of religion, a common problem is that it brings in practices that most people would not recognize as being inherently religious. For example, we all know that nationalism is not the same as religion, but what makes it different? When you break both concepts into their fundamental components, one notices shocking similarities. Both nationalism and Catholicism appeal to higher powers, frequently use symbols and imagery (like flags or crosses), involve ceremonies and celebrations, form communities around their beliefs and so on. Yet there is some feeling inherently unique to Catholicism that can instantly identifies with the term religion. This feeling is hard to recreate with other expressions of belief, like nationalism, and so we simply refuse to define them as religion. It is hard to fully encapsulate what this feeling is in words, but I would argue that it is founded in understanding. Religion, at its core, is about developing a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world (consisting of natural and spiritual elements). Other expressions of belief concern themselves with things that are known. Nationalism, for example, expresses dedication and appreciation toward the known deeds, accomplishments, and spirit of a country. What the belief finds value in is exclusively what is known. Religion differs in that it derives value in both what is known and what is not known. Catholicism finds value in everything that is present, was present, and will be present because it is made by God. At the same time, it recognizes value in the mysteries of the world that are yet to be answered because it provides meaning to seek these answers and develop our understanding of the world further. When we reach these answers, this information is added to the bubble of what is known, and so it is understood to be valuable because it is made by God.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Austin's Theology Responses 
I think the way that you structured your definition of religion through comparing it to nationalism is really effective. I agree with the fact that there is something intrinsically different between the two, even if it is difficult to discern what that truly consists of. My only question is that if religion is the answer to the “unknown”, therefore making it “known”, is this truly different to your definition of nationalism?
LikeLike
Yes, I agree that at the point where religion becomes concerned with what is known, it is no different than nationalism and other expressions of beliefs. However, I’d argue that it’s impossible. Religion concerns itself with questions of which there can be no certain answer like we discussed in the lecture on Tuesday. I don’t think there will ever be a point where religion can truly say that the answers it has discovered are fact.
LikeLike
For lack of a better phrasing (because I know it looks like I’m asking exactly what you answered), how do you think that the understanding portion of religion makes it distinct in people’s minds? For example, do you think there’s a way that religion can be considered for all people as a deeper belief (than perhaps nationalism) because of its personal investment?
LikeLike
I think it’s hard to define something as a deeper belief because that definition is too relative. There are plenty of people who aren’t religious and may find that their country is closer to their heart than any god. So that’s why I tried to think of a definition that people could agree with, regardless of their closeness to religion. I think the known vs unknown debate is at the center of religion and its relationship with other subjects. Take science for example, which is constantly in contention with religion. Both want to find answers about the world, but religion is content with uncertain conclusions while science requires certainty in order to proceed. If you match religion side by side with other expressions of belief, it seems like religion always distinguishes itself based on taking the side of the unknown.
LikeLike
I agree with you in that religion is distinguishable because it deals with the unknown. However, I do not agree with one of your last points. I do not think that we will ever truly find answers to the big questions. I think that most religious ideas can never become a part of the “known” category.
LikeLike
I agree with you. Questions like who we are, what our purpose in life is, and who God is are important to theology and are ones that will eternally drive religion. I think that’s the way religion distinguishes itself from other expressions of belief. While their questions may reach a known conclusion, religion’s will always remain unknown. Perhaps that’s the beauty of it.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that you completely distinguish a thing such as nationalism from religion. However, I would still have to note that, even though religion is associated with a higher matter, nationalism is still similar in some regards, do to the fervor of the believers in it. In my opinion, anything can be like a religion, but rarely is something a religion.
LikeLike
The two are definitely but not the same time. I say that there’s a special feeling that comes with religion that you cannot recreate elsewhere. It’s hard to define this feeling, but most people can just tell whether something feels like a religion. That’s why I say the unknown aspect is what separates something like religion from being a religion.
LikeLike