USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
You have now carefully read and discussed the following readings: William Portier, Ch. 1 “The Great Questions” and Ch. 3, “Religion” from Tradition and Incarnation; Steven Prothero, Introduction from God Is Not One; and the Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate. In this first written reflection, you are going to bring these various perspectives into dialogue.
This assignment must take the form of a paper. The length should be at least 2-3 pages but no longer than 5 pages. The paper must be typed, using Times Roman 12 pt font, double spaces, one inch margins. It should be submitted as a hard copy in class on the due date and be submitted to Turn-it-in via Isidore.
The paper must address the following questions/prompts and be clearly based on the material covered thus far in class. You may need more than one paragraph to answer each part adequately. Cite all sources accurately.
Before you write, think about how each source (William Portier, Stephen Prothero, and the Catholic Church) understands “religion” (the purposes, starting points, and definitions of religion, etc…)
The paper itself with address the following four questions:
First, what are some of the most important similarities between how each of our sources understand religion? (Its purposes, starting points, definition, etc…)
Second, what are some of the most significant differences between our sources’ understandings about religion?
Third, given these similarities and differences, describe two possible approaches one might take to the study of religion. For each approach, describe what one might learn about religion from that approach. The approaches may be taken directly from a reading as long as you cite your source and are able to say why that approach makes sense. You are encouraged to offer an approach that combines what is found in the readings.
Fourth, what questions does thinking about these various perspectives on religion and approaches to the study of religion raise that require further study.
Grading criteria
- Use of Sources: Inclusion of all four readings, accurate accounts of the content of each reading, and the proper citation of your sources. This is not a research paper. You should not need any additional sources beyond what we have read in class.
- Content: Responses to each of the questions/prompts that demonstrate critical reflection on course material and class discussion. “Critical” here means being able to make distinctions that help you to compare and contrast the various ideas. Responses to each of the questions/prompts that demonstrate creative reflection on course material and class discussion. “Creative” here means bringing these various perspectives into conversation in ways that further our understanding of the study of religion.
- Structure: Clear Introduction, Body, and Conclusion that helps address the prompts
- Grammar and Mechanics – Clarity and quality of writing, proper format, proper use of grammar, correct spelling, etc… In other words, yes, spelling counts!
Nostra Aetate
DECLARATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE
CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
Second Vatican Council
October 28, 1965
Revised English Translation*
1. In our day, when people are drawing more closely together and the bonds of friendship
between different peoples are being strengthened, the church examines more carefully its
relations with non-Christian religions. Ever aware of its duty to foster unity and charity among
individuals, and even among nations, it reflects at the outset on what people have common
and what tends to bring them together.
Humanity forms but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which
God created to people the entire earth (see Acts 17:26), and also because all share a
common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend
to all humankind (see Wis 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom 2:6-7; 1 Tim 2:4) against the day when the
elect are gathered together in the holy city which is illumined by the glory of God, and in
whose splendor all peoples will walk (see Apoc 21:23 ff.).
People look to their different religions for an answer to the unsolved riddles of human
existence. The problems that weigh heavily on people’s hearts are the same today as in past
ages. What is humanity? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is upright behavior,
and what is sinful? Where does suffering originate, and what end does it serve? How can
genuine happiness be found? What happens at death? What is judgment? What reward
follows death? And finally, what is the ultimate mystery, beyond human explanation, which
embraces our entire existence, from which we take our origin and towards which we tend?
2. Throughout history, to the present day, there is found among different peoples a certain
awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of
human life. At times, there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a
Father. This awareness and recognition results in a way of life that is imbued with a deep
religious sense. The religions which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor by
way of well-defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions. Thus, in
Hinduism people explore the divine mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth
and the accurately defined insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trials of the
present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation and recourse to God in confidence
and love. Buddhism in its various forms testifies to the essential inadequacy of this changing
world. It proposes a way of life by which people can, with confidence and trust, attain a state
of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or with
divine help. So, too, other religions which are found throughout the world attempt in different
ways to overcome the restlessness of people’s hearts by outlining a program of life covering
doctrine, moral precepts and sacred rites.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. It has a high
regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although
differing in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth
which enlightens all men and women. Yet it proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim
without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God
reconciled all things to himself (see 2 Cor 5:18-19), people find the fullness of their religious
life.
The Church, therefore, urges its sons and daughters to enter with prudence and charity into
discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing
to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and
moral truths found among non-Christians, together with their social life and culture.
3. The church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living
and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth,1 who has also
spoken to humanity. They endeavor to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden
decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims
eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a
prophet; his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they
await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For
this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer,
alms-deeds and fasting.
Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and
Muslims. The sacred council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere
effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all, let them together
preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.
4. Sounding the depths of the mystery which is the church, this sacred council remembers the
spiritual ties which link the people of the new covenant to the stock of Abraham.
The church of Christ acknowledges that in God’s plan of salvation the beginnings of its faith
and election are to be found in the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. It professes that all
Christ’s faithful, who as people of faith are daughters and sons of Abraham (see Gal 3:7), are
included in the same patriarch’s call and that the salvation of the church is mystically
prefigured in the exodus of God’s chosen people from the land of bondage. On this account
the church cannot forget that it received the revelation of the Old Testament by way of that
people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy established the ancient covenant. Nor can
it forget that it draws nourishment from that good olive tree onto which the wild olive branches
of the Gentiles have been grafted (see Rom 11:17-24). The church believes that Christ who
is our peace has through his cross reconciled Jews and Gentiles and made them one in
himself (see Eph 2:14,16).
Likewise, the church keeps ever before its mind the words of the apostle Paul about his kin:
“they are Israelites and it is for them to be sons and daughters, to them belong the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the
patriarchs, and of their race according to the flesh, is the Christ” (Rom 9:4,5), the Son of the
Virgin Mary. It is mindful, moreover, that the apostles, the pillars on which the church stands,
are of Jewish descent, as are many of those early disciples who proclaimed the Gospel of
Christ to the world.
As holy scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God’s moment when it came (see Lk
19:42). Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the contrary, many opposed its
spread (see Rom 11:28). Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear
to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or
the choice he made.2 Together with the prophets and that same apostle, the church awaits
the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and serve him
shoulder to shoulder (Soph 3:9; see Is 66:23; Ps 65:4; Rom 11:11-32).
Since Christians and Jews have such a common spiritual heritage, this sacred council wishes
to encourage and further mutual understanding and appreciation. This can be achieved,
especially, by way of biblical and theological enquiry and through friendly discussions.
Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death
of Christ (see Jn 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be
charged with the crimes committed during his passion. It is true that the church is the new
people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this
followed from holy scripture. Consequently, all must take care, lest in catechizing or in
preaching the word of God, they teach anything which is not in accord with the truth of the
Gospel message or the spirit of Christ.
Indeed, the church reproves every form of persecution against whomsoever it may be
directed. Remembering, then, it’s common heritage with the Jews and moved not by any
political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, it deplores all
hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism directed against the Jews at any time or from
any source. The church always held and continues to hold that Christ out of infinite love
freely underwent suffering and death because of the sins of all, so that all might attain
salvation. It is the duty of the church, therefore, in it’s preaching to proclaim the cross of
Christ as the sign of God’s universal love and the source of all grace.
5. We cannot truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any people as other than sisters
and brothers, for all are created in God’s image. People’s relation to God the Father and their
relation to other women and men are so dependent on each other that the Scripture says
“they who do not love, do not know God” (1 Jn 4:8). There is no basis therefore, either in
theory or in practice for any discrimination between individual and individual, or between
people and people arising either from human dignity or from the rights which flow from it.
Therefore, the church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against
people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race, color, condition in life or religion.
Accordingly, following the footsteps of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, the sacred council
earnestly begs the Christian faithful to “conduct themselves well among the Gentiles” (1 Pet
2:12} and if possible, as far as depends on them, to be at peace with all people (see Rom
12:18) and in that way to be true daughters and sons of the Father who is in heaven (see Mt
5:45).
Notes
I . See St Gregory VII, Letter 21 to Anzir (Nacir), King of a. Mauretania: PL 148, col. 450 ff.
II. See Rom 11:28-29; see Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.
* As found in Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II: Constitutions Decrees,
Declarations. A Completely Revised Translation in Inclusive Language (Northport, NY:
Costello Publishing, 1996).
TRnotrtoN nNo INca,RNATIoN
in understanding of what is handed on, both the words and the
realities they signify. This comes about through contempla-
tion and study by believers, who “ponder these things in their
hearts” (see Lk 2,19 and 51); through the intimate understand-
ing of spiritual things which they experience; and through the
preaching of whose who, on succeeding to the office of bish-
op, receive the sure charisma of truth. Thus, as the centuries
advance, the church constantly holds its course towards the
fu
ll
ness of God’s truth, until the day when the words of God
reach their fulfillment in the church.
Vatican Il, Dogmatic Constitution
on Divine Revelation (1965)
ChaPter l
The Great Questions
THE RETIGIOUS DIMENSION
Ourworldisfullofreligions.Mostculturesexhibitwhatwe
can intelligently recognize asreligious
behavior’ Putting aside un-
iii’Ct”p,”i III the task of defining the term religion, we can
note
;;^;t”;””er we find human beings we usually find a god or
i”ar, .”1igious behavior, and religious faith’
Critics of religion
toth’anci”ent and modern have clismissed it as a mere human
creation, a fire around which people who can’t bear to imagine
a
cold and indifferent universs huddle’ Religious people believe
thatthegodsarequiterealandhavemanifestedthemselves.Crit-
ics cannJt deny that the religions of the world, along with their
share of charlatans and hypoirites, have also inspired many self-
less and truly holy people *ho- we can’t help but admire’ In.spite
of recurring prophecies that humanity will soon outgrow tnem’
religious faith and practice remain.
whether we agree with religious pcople or their critics or
simply don’t know, the near-universal appeal’ the persistence,
and the transforming power of religions are intriguing. What is
there about human U”ingr that opens them to religions and their
claims about things unseen? Where do religious experience and
religious language fit into human experience in general’? This
chapter will address these questions by trying to lay open what we
might call the depth-climension of human experience, that inner-
most part of us, best represented by some combination of the
traditional symbols of heart and head. It is at this lcvel that we can
best hear the words of the philosophers, poets, and gods. We will
oegtn by distinguishing between ordinary and extraordinary hu-
man experience.
10 TR,qnrrroN a,No INcnnNArroN
ORDINARY HUMAN EXPERIENCE
what is meant here by “ordinary” human experience takes
place at the level of what is often called common sense. It is
routine. we don’t have to think about it. Getting out of bec1,
taking a shower, brushing your teeth, putting on your shoes. start-
ing your car, driving to school or work are all the kinds of stuff of
which the ordinary is made. For our purposes, its distinguishing
feature is that we don’t have to think about it. The ordinary. day-
to-day routine doesn’t usually give rise to reflection. we teno io
take it for granted.
But to describe ordinary experience as routine is far fr.m
dismissing it. without the basic structure it provides, we might all
go mad. What would happen. for example. if you hacl to tigrr.
out the inner workings of the internal combustion engine every
time you wanted to start your car? The routine is comfbrtable. It
lets us know what to expect.
Each culture puts at human disposal a set of ready_to_hand
things from which we put together our pre-reflective routine.
What is common sense for one culture, e.g. cars and planes and
how to use them, may be quite extraordinary for anoiher. What
you regard as routine or ordinary will be related to your culture.
EXTRAORDINARY HUMAN EXPERIENCE
At certain points in every life, the routine of ordinary expcri-
ence is broken or interrupted in a dramatic way. By contrast with
the routine, we can call these disruptions ,.extraordinary.’. The
terms ordinary and extraordinary are correlative or defined in
relation to one another. To have one you need the other. We
recognize and name the extraordinary by its contrast with what
we know as ordinary. This gives us the relatively routine or ordi-
nary and the relatively extraordinary or special. One of the distin-
guishing features of extraordinary experiences is that they can
lead people to think more deeply or at a different level than thcy
usually do when they are performing day-to-day tasks. Extraordi-
nary experiences are quite common in the sense that they happen
to everyone at different times. They are only extraordinary in
Tss Gnenr QussrtoNs
relation to the routine
of the person who has them’ Four exam-
oles will be useo. ro
clarify extraordinary experience and its ef-
l”i g Oitrn, death’ love’ and evil’
Birth and death establish the
fl”*A”ti”t of a given routine’
Love and evil shape its highs and
lows.
FOUR EXAMPLES
1. Birth. Although some psychologists speak of the “trauma
of birth” and its effects on us, our own births are not an
issue
t “r,
r am referring rather to births that occur in one’s own family
o.-in ott”. families that are close to us. Although millions of
people are born each day and, in that sense, birth is quite com-
Inon, i, usually only happens in the lives of individual sets of
parents, for example, a relatively few times in their lives. In that
,”nr”, birth is statistically and personally extraordinary’ Some
women have described childbirth as an experience of often but
not always unspeakable physical pain to be followed by exhilarat-
ing joy. Babies represent for us a renewal and reaffirmation of
life. They remind us of new beginnings and human possibilities.
While we have all seen diagrams of the hit-or-miss process that
unites sperm and egg and know quite well how the baby comes
into being, we still speak innocently of the “miracle of birth.” To
hold a newborn baby that is your own flesh and blood, and to
realize that this little human beins didn’t exist before and now it
does, and that you and everyboJy else got here this way, is to
know this wonder. The wonder will not last as birth gives way to
the demanding routine of infant care and child rearing. But it
returns with our occasional reflective binges about what the fu-
ture might hold for this new being and about the possibly prodi-
glous consequences of how we treat it. These are not the thoughts
ot which routines are made. and were we to sustain them inde{i-
nitely, they would probably drive us crazy.
ror a pregnant woman who is alone and abandoned, for
parents who, for whatever reasons. do not want the routine to be
lntruded upon by new life and all its artendant complications. the
w^older turns to dread. The two responses are closely related. In
Doth cases, the awesome masnitude of new beins invades our
ll
Tna.orrroN,qNo INcaRNAT ToN
lives. It can be greeted as a gracious gift or resisted as an intolera-
ble imposition. often we greet new life with complex combina_
tions of the two responses.
2. Death. As with birth. we are not concerned here with our
own deaths, but with those of pcople close to us: parents. chil_
dren, relatives. and friends. Death puts a final end to the routine
and to life as we know it. In the process, it raises the deepest and
most disturbing questions about the possible meaning or absur-
dity of human life. Is this it? why are we even born if it is onlv to
come to this? Do we just return to the chemical elements out of
which we are composed? Anyone who has held a dead chircl.
watched a loved one die slowly and painfully, touched the colcl,
dead face of one’s mother’s or father’s corpse, knows the awful
pull of these questions. This is part of the power of Michelan-
gelo’s Pietd.
The end of the routine makes us wonder why there is any
routine at all. It throws into question the very nature of what we
are dealing with in human life. Death enables us to see life whole.
and so we use the term life, as in “Life is sad, life is a bust.” or
“Life, I love you, all is groovy.” what about this “rife” we tark
about? Is life such that it has it in for us, as it seems when the lives
of our fellows are taken away and we are left to face our own
mortality? Is life gracious, as it seems when it bestows the eift and
promise of new life? or is life simply cold and indifferent’fDo we
even have any justification for speaking this way? Such questions
become more poignant when death involves the innocenr. a
young child, or an obviously good person who has suffered more
than we would wish on even the worst of us. Can we expect
anything better out of life? why do we even want to or think we
have a right to? The old retort that no one ever said life had to be
fair cannot take away the sadness or the anger or the longing. We
seem to want more than life has to offer. Is this a clue that points
to the nature of reality or simply a warning that we need more
“realistic” expectations?
Although death raises in dramatic form the question about
the ultimate meaning of our lives, we can and do find short of
ultimate meanings. If someone were to ask you, for example, why
you are here, you could answer at various levels with reference to
livelihood, career goals, and personal preferences. These are all
THs Gnenr QuEsrtoNs
short of ultimate
meanings. The ultimate meaning is what is true
1.,,i’,t” last analysis”’the last meaning, the meaning of all the
ri,ti” r.unings. the last
“why” that would answer at the most
,”ji””f level the question about the reason you are here’ Perhaps
if,”i” ir no such answer, no ultintate meaning. Death brings us to
iir”-O.in, of facing up to this
possibility. Life givcs us death but it
i””i”., tell us what death means. This leaves us in an ambiguous
Jiuution. Life might not mean anything in particular beyond the
fini,. n,”unings we give it in terms of our various cultures. The
ouestion about ultimate meaning might just be a silly one’
3. Love. Love and evil are used here to stand for what hap-
pens in us when we experience the human capacity for selfless
Lehavior and the human capacity for cruelty and inhumanity. In
the case of love, we are speaking of the effects that unselfish
behavior, done for the sake of someone else, might have on the
person who receives it. Romantic love is certainly not excluded
from such an understanding of love. But love as selfless behavior
is much broader than romantic love, and some forms of romantic
love can be quite selfish. Although I am committed to the proposi-
tion that unselfish behavior is preferable to cruelty, the point here
is not primarily an ethical one. It is rather to explore the kinds of
questions that our experience of love and evil raise about the
human condition. This is pre-ethical.
Experiencing love in the sense meant here often brings one
up short. [t comes to us as a eift. unowed and often unexpected.
While we might try to manip”ulate the feelings ancl bchaviors of
others more often than we’d like to admit. we cannot coerce or
control love freely given. The record of human history, as well as
the experien.. of riost people, testifies to the extraordinary hu-
mal.capacity for heroic self-sacrifice. Among the examples we
could include are courageous soldiers who sive their lives for their
comrades. daring .”r.u!r, who risk their own lives to save othcrs,
::,T.: and men who devote their lives to care of the poor, thestck. the elderly, and the dying, and mothers ancl fathers whocarry-out the daily nurture of their children. Often wc have a hard
l::nerjelieving that orhers could really love us unsetfishly, just for
I]:^1. tend to wonder at rheir gifts, suspecting that we don,r
“tt:y: them, or fearing that they;ll be taken awiy.
We tend to be in awe of genuine human soodness when we
1312
1574 TnaorrroN nNo INcRRNATToN
encounter it in such phenomena as faithfulness to promises that
we might have broken. Another’s love is a potentialjudgment on
our own frequently selfish behavior. Oftcn it makcs us feelunwor-
thy, challenging our own patterns of behavior, making us wonder
if what we consider good in others is really the way wc ought to
behave. Again the emphasis here is not on ethics, especialll,if
that is understood in its most primitive form as the imposition of
external standards. The emphasis is rather on the deep pre-ethical
questions about the human condition raised by the experience of
love.
4. Evil. This section is not about what modern thcolograns
and philosophers sometimes call the problem of evil or theoclicy.
(see Chapter lI). Nor is evil being used as a primarily cthical
category. Rather, the emphasis is on the decp questions about the
human condition raised by our own expcriences of cruclty. inhu-
manity, and seemingly undeserved suffering. We can expenencc
this kind of evil ourselves or witness as others suffer it. In discuss-
ing the problem of evil, theologians and philosophers somctimes
distinguish between the kind of evil that others do to us, likc
cruelty or inhumanity, and that which befalls or overtakes us by
accident, such as cancer or othcr diseascs. Because diseases such
as cancer are often caused by the refusal of human agents to take
public health into account when they make business decisions.
this distinction cannot be too rigidly applied. But it works in a
general enough way that we can limit our present concerns to thc
kind of evil that is done to us by others. Evil is being used in a
common-sense way that precedes ethical reflection. This use pre-
sumes our natural revulsion at the crueltv and inhumanity human
beings inflict on one another.
The cruel taunts with which children torment one another
provide a frightening indication that the human capacity for inhu-
manity runs as deep as our capacity fbr heroism. Who among us
has not been the clumsy one, thc fat one, the handicapped one’
the one that was too smart, the one whose clothes were wrong or
whose parents were strange’l Who among us docsn’t know some-
one who is just downright mean? Who has been spared the sttng
of human cruelty? On a grander and more ghastly scale. we have
the ovens of Dachau. thc “colored” water fcluntains. lunch ctlull-
ters, and schools, and their nagging but subtlc rcsiclucs in Amcri-
THp Gnrlr QuEsrIoNs
^on soci€ty. What
would you have felt if you were a Jew being
ll””.ir.nted upon or incinerated simply for being a Jew, a black
il,in U.ing lynched in the segregated south simply for being
ili”.nf ThLse are the taunts of children raised to the most grue-
..,ra Oo*.rs. Anger. rage. determination. resignation. or despair
.unnoi take away the radical sense that such things should not be
allowed to happen to us. Religious people ask where their God
has gone. We feel we have the right not only to complain but to
lament and protest such treatment to whatever powers there are.
At some deep level such behavior strikes at our very sense of
humanity. Like life itself, the human begins to emerge against the
background of the recognizably inhuman. What is human any-
way? What are human beings that they seem to have such divided
capacities?
The most disturbing moment in our reflections on our re-
sponses to human cruelty comes when we begin to realize that we
are brothers and sisters to the grand inquisitors and the Hitlers of
our world. Our hearts can twist themselves into the kinds of knots
that lead to the point where we can write off whole groups of
people as less than what we are. We have all invoked our own
particular versions of the final solution.
We are weak composites of conflicting motives and impulses.
We fail to live up to the very ideals we have set for ourselves. We
break faith with the ones we love. This is not to deny that some-
times we can be heroically faithful. Sometimes we do come
through. It is precisely this ambiguity that raises the deepest ques-
tlons about us. What kind of beings are we? How ought we to act?
Should our behavior lead to profound regret at our weakness or
!_nlV
to. cynicism about all forms of oughts, whether they come
rrom within or without us?
SU-MMARY CHARACTERI STI CS
UF EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCES
“”.-Il_._t:ur
examples used here to illustrate exrraordinary experi-
Xllt^t^it.jY no means exhaustive. In his book Faith and Doctrine,
.:|:|?ty Baum, a Canadian rheologian, adds more descriptions ofwnat he calls “depth-experienc”.],, both secular and relisious.
TsE Gnenr QuesrtoNs t716 Tna.orrroN nNn IUcnRNATIoN
Among his examples of secular depth-experiences he inclucles
friendship, conscience, truth, human solidarity, and compassi6n-
ate protest. These and many other examples could be developed
along the lines indicated here to formulate the kinds of questions
about the human condition that open up its depth dimension. \Vs
can summarize the preceding experiences in the following way:
First, extraordinary experiences are strikingly different from
the routine or the ordinary against which they appear. They tend
to break the patterns of our experience in dramatic ways. Ib
locate them in the geography of experience, we often use spatial
metaphors. Thus we speak of the “depths” of human expcrience
or its “borders” or “limits” or “peaks.”
Second, in themselves extraordinary experiences are ambigu-
ous. Death, for example, does not also tell us what death should
mean, how we should interpret it, or answer the questions that it
raises. Death is therefore ambiguous, admitting of more than one
possible interpretation.
Third, we tend to remember extraordinary experiences, and
they can exert powerful influences on the direction of our lives.
The stronger or more striking they are, the more power they have
to affect us.
Fourth, because of their unusual character, extraordinary ex-
periences often lead us to think seriously about the meaning and
direction of our lives. This kind of thinking or reflection takes
place at a different level, usually we call it “deeper,” than the kind
of thinking we do in the everyday world of common scnse. Extra-
ordinary experiences often give rise to questions that are very
difficult to answer with our usual problem solving methods.
THI QUESTION OF UITIMATI MEANING
From the discussion of extraorclinary experiences and the
questions they raise. we can conclude that’ at its “depths”‘or
whatever metaphor we choose, the human condition can be de-
scribed as mystirious. Because we are talking about the extraordi-
nary, the term myster-y is not being used in the ordinary sense it
has when we refer to “‘mystery stories.” In this latter sense, mys-
teries can be solved conclusively on the basis of evidence’ The
r*’*ftnff”r’lt*’-*g**
instruction manuals’
the human concutlon
involve us personally’ we can only answer
them with personat
decisions’ O:l]:,t^”,ltl of mystery’ the poem’
the song, or the story
is more appropriate than the memorandum’
iit” t””‘”‘t’.ol the encyclopedia’ nnor”^’- -W” find that at its deepest levels’ human experlence ca
“r”oun-,
ior itsett in a pureiy theoretical way’ It raises questions
that cannot be answeied unless we acknowledge
our personal
innolu.nr.nt in them. we can say thilt human
cxperiencc carries
withinitselfthispossibilityforreflection.becausecertainexperi-
ences lead us to question ihe meaning of all experience.
This last
is what is meant by the question of ultimate meaning. It asks
aboutthefinalmeaningofalltheshort-of.ultimatemeanlngsln
our lives. Why are we’here? What becomes of us in the end?
What is our final purpose? What is a human being and how ought
we to behave towardone another? These are the great questions,
the deep questions about the human condition’
..Numberless are the world’s wonders,” said the Greek play-
wright Sophocles, “but none more wonderful than man” (Antig-
,n”, S.”n” I). It is important to emphasize thal the wonder about
the human condition expressed by the great questions has not
been imposed on experience from outside by out-of-touch schol-
ars and professors. itrough we would each give voice to them in
our own way, we have all felt the great questions. They are givcn
with experience, rising up from out of its depths.
Tb return to the question with which this chapter began, we
can say that religion fits into experience and appeals to us at the
same deep level where we encounter life as mystery and the vari-
ous questions that reveal it as mysterious. All serious literature
operates at the same level, exploring and rendering the great
questions into the literary forms of poetry and narrative. To treat
religious matters as routine, disposable commodities in the every-
day world is to trivialize them ernd turn religion into a banal form
of magic or a sick game that the gods force us to play. Serious
t91B TnaorrroN a,No INcRnNATToN TsB Gneer Qus,srloNs
unfettered self’
unconscious of prior connections to family and
ilir’r.O, t”.,s completely
free to ask the great questions and suffi-
‘^,–rl” mobile and unbound to follow wherever the questions
i””i.’tt,i, image has a certain heroic or larger-than-life aspect. In
,il-r,ori”r of our culture, the heroic, solitary searcher holds a
noble Place'””” fire second image is that of an individual in context, situated
in a particular place and time and in a particular network of
,”tution. to people in family, community, nation, and church. This
i*ug” reminds the questioner to pay attention to the settings in
wtriitr the great questions might arise. The inheritance of shared
language, culture, and religion shapes such settings and supplies
terms in which we can ask and answer questions about the human
condition.
Each reader is both a solitary and a contextual questioner.
Academic life tends to emphasize the disengaged posture of the
first image. It teaches us to “trust lonely reason primarily” (Rodri-
guez,46). But experience should teach us that we don’t encounter
the human condition raw. Though our questions about human life
are deeply personal, historical contexts shape their forms and
tones. Our thoughts and questions about death, for example,
don’t occur in a vacuum. They must be posed in some particular
language or other.
In this chapter on the great questions, readers have been
addressed as if they were simply solitary, disconnected question-
ers. Emphasis on the individual inquirer is useful at the outset. Its
abstract approach minimizes the historical differences among
readers and thus appeals to the widest audience. Subsequent chap-
ters-‘ however, will challenge readers increasingly to take account
of the fact that questioning is not only privatsand personal, but
also profoundly social or contextual.
Another word for context is tradition.l want to use it to refer
l?^th: sea of historical connections (linguistic, national, and reli-
glous) in which individuals swim. A tradition is an historical con-text or network of linpuisrii;;;.’,Y’ rrctworK oi llnguistic. personal. and cultural relationships.wtthin such networks, individuals learn how to be individuals.
religious faith and practice can only make sense to someone who
has felt the deep and mysterious ambiguity of the human concli_
tion and felt the urgency of the question to which it gives rise. At
the level of mystery, life requires of us a certain op.nn.r, repre-
sented by the pitgrim attitude of the wayfarer. Marcel calls us
Homo viator, human being on the way.
If human experience is open-ended and mysterious, thcn it
can admit of, but does not require, religious interpretations. we
can exclude religious interpretations, if we choose to, but we
cannot demonstrate that the evidence of experience requires this
of us. None of the examples discussed above is, strictly speaking,
religious. As we shall see below, however, religious people orten
so experience them. At this point, we can only conclude that the
ultimately mysterious quality of human existence, opened by the
great questions, leaves life open to a religious interpretation.
THE pOStTtvE RotE oF TRAD|T|ON tN QUESTTONTNG
Why are we here? What becomes of us in the end,l What is
our final purpose? What is a human being and how ought we to
behave toward one another? These are some of the great ques-
tions. As one begins to reflect on them, two approaches present
themselves. The following pair of images captures the contrast
between them.
First image: Picture yourself at your desk in your room. you
are alone. It’s evening. In the lamplight you can see the paper in
front of you as you write. The paper is blank, and you are fie e to
fill it with your own thoughts. It is as if you were the only pcrson
in the world.
Second image: Picture yourself in church on Sunclay or on a
city sidewalk for a Fourth of July parade. you are surrounded by
other people, but also by the inherited words and symbols of your
religion or nation. You share these words and symbols with the
other people in church or on the sidewalks. Sometimes you speak
the words together as in the creed or the pledge of allegiance to
the flag. Your imaginations respond similarly, though not identi-
cally, to common symbols such as the cross ancl the flag.
The first is an image of a solitary individual questioner. This
learn how to be individuals.,FL :-vr”vrAJ, rrrulvluudlJ rg4ltl ltLrw LL, utt tllulvlLludtlr.
j,lll !””T^,he categories in terms of which they talk and act andtlrnrl- –
,’,;l ono hnd meaning in their lives. Traditions are not mono-tirr,:_ -“- rrrru ilr€itlrlrlg ln tnelr llves. lraclltlons are not mono_rrtnlc or uniform or one-sided. Rather, they are like ongoing con-
2120 TnaorrroN nNo INcnRNATToN
versations. The points of view and the shades of emphasis in the
conversation are often functions of money and power. Thus tracli-
tions embody not only conversation but also bitter argument and
political struggle. The key aspect of tradition, however, is that it
provides the framework and the terms in which conversations s1
political struggle can be conducted and sometimes movecl fo1_
ward. As a result of such movement, power relationships x1s
often changed.
An excellent example of a tradition is American law. It is
itself a particular development in the Anglo-Saxon legar tradition.
The body of precedent doesn’t provide ready-made answers ro
each new legal question. Rather it provides the framework and
the terms in which answers emerge from a process of dialogue
that is designed to test competing claims to truth in a conflictual
setting.
If you are an American, the legal tradition of the United
States is part of your cultural context or inheritance. you carry rr
around inside of you even if you never think of it. It shapes vour
ideas of what is fair and what you have a right to expect in pubhc
dealings with people, especially people you don’t know. To realize
how much your own legal tradition has shaped your sense of what
is fair, you need only compare it with an alien legal tradition.
The fact th:rt you could make such a comparison illustrates
that traditions are not absolutely closed and isolated from onc
another, but open to dialogue. The example of American law also
illustrates that traditions are open to political change. When the
leaders of the civil rights movement in the Unitecl States wanted
to end segregation, they made an internal critique of the laws that
made it possible. They criticized segregation as unjust in thc legal
terms provided by the American tradition. They appealed to the
American legal tradition and to its sense of what is fair. They
struggled and they won, and power relationships changed.
Tradition so understood is both limiting and enabling or free-
ing. Tradition literally means “what has been handed on.” The
term is intended to emphasize the historical or inherited character
of context. Each of us carries around within ourselves-evefl
when we are alone at our desks-an inherited language, an inher-
ited family from an inherited people in an inherited culturzrl set-
ting. To try to think seriously without adverting to our manifold
Tsr Gnnnr QussrtoNs
inheritance i.s
naivl,in the extreme. lf we should decide that our
i)i”ritance is too limiting and needs to be overcome to some
)lli”r.we will find that the best resources available for overcom-
iiii, urr, paradoxically, those we have inherited. Though appeals
t’oiradition are often used
to suffocate growth and repress ques-
itn., *. must acknowledge that the very terms we use to ques-
iion una challenge inherited authorities havc been themselves
inherited from a living tradition. Tradition or inheritance is alive
and constantly being refashioned by individuals who inhabit it and
contribute to its ongoing convcrsation.
Catholicism has been called the longest-lived intellectual tra-
dition in the west. One of the goals of this book is to convey to the
reader a sense of how the Catholic intellectual tradition works. I
have emphasized context, historical setting, inheritance, and
tradition-intending them as virtually synonymous-because one
cannot understarrd what it means to think and question as a Catho-
lic without a positive feel for tradition as simultaneously enabling
and limiting. What we inherit not only limits what we can do-the
usual emphasis of our culture-but it also enables us to do what
we can do. Tradition is not simplv inert and suffocatins. It is also
Pope John Paul II on the dltnamic nature of traditions:
From this open search for truth, which is rencwed in every
generation, the culture of a nation clerives its character. In-
deed. the heritage of values which has been received and
nanded down is always challenged by the young. To challenge
Loes
not necessarily mean to destroy or rcject a priori, but
above all to put these values to the test in one’s own life, andtnrough this existential verification to make them more real,
l”].,Yl”, and personal, clistinguishing the valid elements in thetradition from false and erroneori on”r, or from obsoletetorms which can be usefully replaceci by others more suited tothe times.
Cente.simus Annus, 1991, Paragraph 50
L-‘t22 Tna,nrrtoN nNo INcnnNATIoN
alive and enabling. It harbors its own resourccs for self-critici5ry
and growth.
Questions for Review and Discussion
1. Discuss the diffcrence between complex, cveryday questions.
such as how to repair a transmission or program a compurer.
and ultimate, or deep, questions.
2. what is ambiguous about our expericnce of birth ancJ cleath,l
3. Why is the discussion of love and evil callcd ..pre-cthical..,/
4. Based on your experience, how would you pose the question
of ultimate meaning?
-5. Are music and literaturc “just entcrtainment,” or can they
also open us up to the depth-dimension of human life’l
6. Argue for or against the claim that human life is ultimatelv
open-ended and mysterious.
7. This chapter has claimed that human life has a clepth-
dimension, and further that religion becomes meaningful to us
at this level. Do you agree or disagree with these claims’J llx-
plain.
From what has bcen said in this chapter. how would you
define the term tradition.!
What is the rolc of tradition in asking the great clucstions’/
How can you be an individual and make your own free
choices, if you always carry around insidc you so many con-
nections to the past?
For Writing and Reflection
1. Write a descriptivc essay about an cxtraordinary experience
you have had. Show how it ope ned up thc depth-dimension by
raising ultimate questions or causing deep rcflcction.
2. Write a descriptive essay about an extraordinary experience
you have cncountered in a film, novel, plav. poctry, or song. or
TuE Gnsa.r QunsrtclNs
about the reflections
such works of art might have occasioned
in You.
write an autobiographical cssay in which you discuss both the
fin,itlng and the enabling aspccts of the tradition(s) you inher-
ited.
For Further Reading
The kinds of reflections that appear in this chapter are often
simplifications of lines of thought found in the writings of the
continental philosophers known as “phenomenologists” c\r. more
popularly, “existentialists.” Gabriel Marccl’s T-he Mystery of Be-
ing,2vols. (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. ‘ 1960). originally deliv-
ered as a series of lectures in 1949 and 1950, offers useful access to
this kind of thinking.
The approach to tradition taken in this chapter is indebted
to the German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900- ). His
book Tiuth and Method (New York: Seabury Press, 1975; origi-
nal edition 1960), pp. 235-344, especially 24,5-58, provides an
account of how tradition is a componcnt in all of our understand-
ing.
In his autobiography Httnger ol’ Memory (New York: Bantam
Books, 1983), Richard Rodriguez offers a moving narrative ap-
proach to the interaction betwee n an individual and tradition. the
private and the public, as he terms them.
8.
9.
10.
Chapter lll
Religion
WHAT IS RE
L
IGION?
If this were a book on the philosophy of God or natural thcol-
ogy, we would at this point examine the varit.rus arguments for and
against God. But since we are on our way to a study of Christian
theology, we must for now lcave aside the philosopher’s path ttr
Gocl antl enter that explicitly religious dimension of human expcri-
ence of which theology is a part. Like philosophy, the religions too
concern themselves with the depth dimension of human experi-
cnce. In the words of the Second vatican council’s Declaration on
the Church’s Relationship to Non-Christian Religions:
Women and mcn expect from thc different religions an answer
to the obscurc riddles of the human condition which today
also, as in the past. profoundly disturb their hearts’ What is a
human bcing’/ What is the mcaning and purposc of our life’l
What is good and what is sin? What origin and purposc dtr
sufferings havc? What is thc way to attaining truc happiness’i
What are death. juclgcment. and retribution aftcr dcath'”
Lastly, what is that final unutterablc mystery which takes in
our lives and from which we take our origin and toward
s
which we tend’? (ParagraPh l)
In studying rcligion. the first problem one faces is the nectlttr
clecicle what will be included in the study’ This is the problcm
of
definition. To what does the tetm religio’n refcr’l This problem
appears in a concrete way in our socicty when the courts have
ttl
decide what forms of behavior should be protected under the
laws
that are intencled to recognize ancl guarantee religiclus frcedom
or
prevent the cstablishment of religion.
RnltctoN
“RELICION’ IN THE AMERICAN CONTEXT
The brief reference above to American law indicates that thc
question “What is religion?” is always asked in a spccific context.
j,ne Ameti.an environment has unique conditions that influencc
thg waY Americans tend to answcr this qucstion.
Tho forces have in the main shaped American cultural ideals.
4
1
VATICAN I
I
The Second Vatican Council
(1962-1965)’ convokcd by
pop” lo”t,n”iXIII. assembled the catholic
bishops of the world
in qn ecUfilentcal council (an assembly
representing the whole
:1,::;; v”rican II was the twenty_first ecumenical council. as
llrsrv_-,
;h”n ;;” reckoned by the Catholic Church’
and the first since
l8?i,.-i; uaoi,ion to rhe coilcge
of bishops in union with the
.1″” f tirftop of Rome), Eastern Orthodox’ Anglican ‘ and
Prot-
5#;; ..pr”r.nrurives also atrended the council as official
ob-
;;;;;;r. i,ope John asked the council to address the spiritual
needs of the contemporary world by engaging
it in dialogue’
itr” .oun.il produced sixteen documents: four constitutions
iJ”-n doctiinal statements in which the church
rearticulated
i,, o*n self-understanding in a contemporary setting)’ ninc
de-
crees, and three declaratircns’ The latter have a more practical
significance and address such modern conditions as religious
pi-uralism and religious liberty. Among the council’s most im-
portant documents are: the Dogmatic Constitutions on the-church
and Divine Revelation, the Pastoral constitution on
the Church in the World of Today, the Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy, the Decrees on Ecumcnism and on Eastern
Catholic Chuiches. and thc Declarations on Religious Free-
dom and the Church’s Relationship to Non-Christian Reli-
gions. Along with the founding of the World Council of
Churches in 1949, Vatican II is one of the most important reli-
gious events of the twentieth century.
46
Rnllcton 494u TRa,orlroN a,No INcanNATION
The first is the dissenting English Protestant Christians who set-
tled what is now the east coast of thc United States. The sccond is
the European enlightenmcnt or age of reason, a period that dates
roughly from 1650 to 1800. The first is represcnted in our cultural
and historical symbols by the New England Puritans, the second
by Thomas Jefferson. Under the force of various circumstanccs.
these two cultural streams flowed together to form one of thc
most distinctive features of American public life. We call it “sepa-
ration of church and state.” It is enshrined in the First Amcnd-
mcnt to the U.S. Constitution. It would be fair to say that for the
first half of the republic’s history, the dissenting Protestant hcri-
tage shaped our understanding of church-state separation. Morc
recently the enlightenment side has predominated. Doubtless this
is because the more inclusive enlightenment symbols, e.g. re ason,
law, and the individual, are better suited to a more diverse popula-
tion. The ascendancy of the enlightenment side of our heritage in
public life has had a tremendous effect on how Americans vierv
“religion. ”
Though it is often treated as a fundamentally intellectual
movement associated with the rise of modern science, thc enlight-
enment was primarily a movement for the political emancipation
of individuals from various forms of traditional authority. the
established Christian churches of E,urope being chief among
them. Freedom of scientific inquiry is one important instancc’ of
such emancipation. Thc chief enlightenment ideal is individual
political liberty and the freedoms of speech, assembly, and rcli-
gion that it implies. Enlightenmcnt commitment to individual po-
litical liberty is bascd on a nearly absolute faith in the competence
and autonomy of individual reason. In this text, I will refer to this
complex of enlightenment ideals and beliefs by the shorthand
lerm modernity.
In contemporary American culture, as it is shaped by law.
mcdia. and political discourse, modcrnity has a strong influencc
on how we perceive “religion.” In a sense , the very idea that thcrc
is a universal phenomenon known as rcligion is a crcation of the
cnlightenment. In fact, there are only particular religions and
they are not accustomed to presenting themselves as one among
the many religions we can choose from. The very category of
religion. as moderns use it, does violence to what it describes.
The religions have most often
understood themselves as both
“.rr;;;;1Go-d
is the God of Abraham) and true (there is only one
\til”.”|irre are almost as many such
claims as there are reli-
;;;;. They appear mutually
exclusive and bound to conflict.
i,,.r, .orp”ting claims, when pushed, lead to religious wars,
per-
:;;;;r,’and other forms of intolerance. By replacing rhc con-
.i”t. .”figions with religion as an abstract and universal category,
*”a.r”r,v sought to avoid or submerge conflict
and secure politi-
..ii*”a,ir”. In so doing, howcver. it changed our approach to
the
religions.^—“By
adverting to how religions worked prior to the enlighten-
ment, we can grasp the extent of modernity’s impact
on our under-
,iunOing and use of the term religion. Before the enlightenment
in
the wesi, the idea of a people or nation implied shared gods and
shared public prayer and ritual. Consider the examples of the an-
cient Roman empire, the Holy Roman Empire of medieval chris-
tendom, the Islamic empire, and even the modern confessional
nation states that emerged in Europe after the reformation and the
Peace of westphalia in 1648. They all had what in
enlightenment
terms we would call “established religions” or “churches.” A look
at how religions work in contemporary cultures that are in tension
with modeinity shows a similar situation. From an historical point
of view, Islamic republics are not unusual-we are. Today’s Ameri-
cans are among the lirst people in history not to consider their
religions as primarily shared and public. We generally call this
disconnection of the gods from the public life of the people “separa-
tion of church and state” and we consider it a very important politi-
cal good. Under modern conditions, religions have become volun-
tary associa
tions.
The point here is not to argue against the voluntary character
of religion in modern society, but to emphasize how
modernity
has changed the religions and our understanding of them. By
rendering them voluntary, modernity has thereby rendered prob-
lematic the essential public and communal dimcnsions of tradi-
tional religions. Religion has become: a) privatizecl or inte-
norized, b) separated from shared daily life, and c) focused on
personal ,.belief.”
a) Privatkation-IJnder modern conditions, religious faith
and life tend to become private and interior as opposed to public
Rgr-rctoN 5150 TReotrtoN a.Nl INcnRNATIoN
and communal. In order to prevent legal establishment and the
religious intolerance and persecution that went along with it, the
gods had to be banished from public life and confined to the
individual soul. When modern people want to find God, the first
place they are inclined to look is within themselves’
b) Separation from Shared Daily Life*Once the religious
sphere is located primarily in the soul, the rest of life becomes
secularized or separate from religious influences. We no longer
expect to find God in ordinary daily life, the activities we share as
members of American culture-business, politics’ law, sports,
entertainment. In a world-historical perspective, what we take for
granted is a most unusual development.
Because of the Christian side of its founding heritage, the
United States, throughout most of its history, has managed to avoid
the full impact of these changes. Instead of having one established
church, the United States had many voluntary churches, denomina-
tions, as they came to be called. In spite of the multiplicity of
denominations, the United States had a shared religious culture.
All the churches-Catholicism and Judaism were conspicuous
exceptions-were descended from the reformation. Public struc-
turei such as law, schools, and language supported their communal
life. By the first decades of the twentieth century, however, public
life had become sufficiently secularized to complete the privatiza-
tion of American religion.
c) Focus on Personal”Belief”-One common effect of privatt-
zation or interiorization is that religious faith and life come to
be
equated with “belief.” When we talk about religion, we often
speak of our “beliefs.” we often divide the world into “believers”
and ,.non-believers,” the latter a more civil term than “unbeliev-
ers.” In an academic setting, belief takes on an intellectual cast’
To study religion is to study different beliefs. To be a catholic. for
example, is to share certain esoteric beliefs with other Catholics’
catholics .,believe in” the pope. Protestants don’t. catholics, Lu-
therans, and Episcopalians are all just like their other fellow
Americans except they have differeni beliefs. The scriptural and
traditional idea of travlng one’s entire life (heart and soul and
strength) transformed in God goes by the way’
I-n rno.” popular religious settings, “belief” takes on a more
devotional than intellectual cast. This preserves some of the sense
,rat God appeals to the
entire person and not just to the part that
:111,;;..i iut belief as religious devotion still remains relatively
Uvt’J
,iiui^r” from rhe rest
of life. In the table of contents of the
lriJ”rd news magazine,
“religion” is only one among many
lrlr”-l,oportant headings.
It comes pretty close to the end of the
irr”* “”;
is comparatively brief and often sensational. Most of us
*.”fa be surprised if it were otherwise'””* nloa.rnity hur created a situation in which most people do
not expect to encounter God in their daily
affairs. God is not
.*p”.r”o to appear.in our shared public life. If we are
interested
inbod, we pray privately or go to church’ From a religious
per-
,p”.tiu., modernity presents a challenge of the highest order’
ileligious faith and life are not likely to survive unless they can
be
puUflfy shared in worship and service and community life. Our
culturono longer provides public structures for such shared activ-
ity. Where traditional religions have remained vital under modern
conditions, people have voluntarily built such structures. The pro-
foundly counter-cultural nature of this effort comes to light when
such people try to pass their faith on to their children.
DEFINING RETIGION
As a curiosity in the modern world, traditional religions have
become an object of study. This gives rise to the problem of
definition. When religion is no longer taken for granted as part of
daily life, we arrive at the problem of defining it. A brief survey
would reveal that scholars have devised various approaches to the
problem of definition.
. As examples we can consider the efforts of two philosophers
who have influenced the acadernic studv of relision in the United
ftales. William James (1842-t910) and Alfred
“Norrh
Whitehcad.
Both James and Whitehead are strikingly and refreshingly original
in l\:it approaches to religion. But their common aversion for thepublic or institutional dimensions of the religions lends to their
language about religion a naively individualistic ring. Its public
otmension
is relegated to the categorv o[ the merely extcrnal.
k.- ln the …o,id of his prestigious Gifforcl Leciures at Edin-ourgh in 1901. James tackles the problem of dcfinition. He begins
TRaurtoN aNo It{c.qRNATloN
by noting that the Ierm religion “cannot stand for any single princi-
ple or essence, but is rather a collective name” (James’ 39) He
then goes on to distinguish between “institutional” and “per-
sonal” religion. The former is a merely “external art, thc art of
winning the favor of the gods” (James, 41). For religion so under-
stood James has little use. He declares personal religion to be
more fundamental and defines it as
the feelings. acts, and experiences of individual men in their
solitudc, so far as they apprehcnd themselves to stand in rela-
tion to whatever they may consider the divine (James’ 42).
James’ comments on human relations to the divine are cxtra-
ordinarily insightful, but they remain limited by his charactcristi-
cally modern focus on “individual men in their solitude.”
Speaking a quarter-century later in 1926, Whitehead cchoes
James’ dichotomy between the internal and the external. He rec-
ognizes the dimensions of “ritual, emotion, belief and rationaliza-
tion” as giving religion “external expression in human history”
(Whitehead, 18). But again for Whitehead, the primary rcligitrus
category is “solitariness.” Barely paraphrasing James, he defines
religion as “what the individual does with his own solitarincss”
(Whiteheacl, 16). Like James he is eloquent on the development
of the individual’s relationship to God. But like James, white-
head remains profoundly innocent of the social dimensions of
interior life.
Thus rcligion is solitariness; and if you are nevcr solitarv’ you
arc t.tcvcr rcligious. collcctivc enthusiasms. rcvivals. irlslilu-
tions, churches, rituals, bibles’ ct>des of behavior’ are the trap-
pings of religion, its passing form (Whitehead. 16)’
In their emphasis on the solitary individual’ these two dcfini-
tions are almost quaintly modern. Their radical separation of the
external ancl the internal blinds them to the enabling rolc of tradi-
tion or inheritance, ancl to a full appreciation of the public antt
communal dimensions of religious tlie. nny primarilv sacramental
or incarnational approach to the relationship between the so-
called external and internal is excluded at the outset’
Rer-rcroN
If students were to
approach the study of religions with such
arnniilonr, the
behavior of serious Jews, Christians, and Mus-
I1″”. f”. example, would be incomprehensiblc except in condc-
#ili;, terms. The
Passovcr meal, the eucharist, the pilgrimage
i. frrf”..u would be consigned to the merely external. Readcrs
J*;. aware that such modern understandings
of religion as
‘r:;””. and Whitehe ad’s are historical exceptions. Tradition al rcl i –
nio* ur. usually not anything
like what James, Whitehead, and
|it”,,oa.rn people assume religion is supposed to bc.
In his book The world’s Religiorts, Ninian Smart offers a
richer but more tentative and heuristic approach to the
problem
of d”finition. Recognizingreligion as a modcrn catcgory.:rnd onc
that religions don’t usually use to understand themselves. hc finds
it more profitable to study particular religions rather than tcr
search for the essence of something called religion. As an aid
to
such comparative study, Smart proposes a sevenfold schema of
dimensions. It provides some initial basis for comparison and
contrast among religions.
One category that cuts across Smart’s dimensions, and ap-
pears as well in many of the classical religious traditions. is that of
worship. Worship is a difficult word for the modern, secular mind
to understand. Whiie we might speak analogically of people wor-
shiping money or the state, the primary scnse of the tcrm worship
implies what in the previous chapter has bcen called thc transcen-
dent. The transcendent is a realitv that is not reduciblc to us or ttl
the world, but that is made maniicst through them. Thc prcsence
SMART’S SEVEN DIMENSIONS
1. practical-ritual
2. experiential-emotional
3. narrative-mythic
4. doctrinal-philosophical
5. ethical-legal
6. social-institutional
7. material
5,1
52
lt’
