What is Religion?

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

—Jesus1

I am the beginning and the middle and the end of all that is. Of all knowledge I am the knowledge of the Soul. Of the many paths of reason I am the one that leads to Truth.

—Krishna2

A man is not a great man because he is a warrior and he kills other men, but because he hurts not any living being he in truth is called a great man.

—The Buddha3

I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat; and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf.

—Muhammad4

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

—Karl Marx5

Just after dawn on November 20, 1979, a small army of about 500 heavily armed religious fanatics took control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Hundreds of pilgrims in the process of performing the annual hajj were taken hostage. Insurgent leaders seized control of the loudspeakers and began to broadcast their message. They announced to all of Mecca that the Mahdi—the fabled redeemer of Islam—had returned and was one of their number. They demanded that all oil exports to the United States be cut off and all foreigners on the Arabian Peninsula be expelled. Mecca and all of Saudi Arabia was on the razor’s edge.

Amazingly, the insurgents put together a large number of followers, including members of the Saudi National Guard, on the basis of a handful of religious claims. Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani was taken to be the Mahdi because of a similarity between his and his father’s names and the names of the Prophet Muhammad and his father. The date of the attack coincided with the beginning of the year 1400 on the Islamic calendar— according to some Islamic tradition, the Mahdi would reveal himself at this time, prior to the impending apocalypse.6 On the Saudi side, the military was reluctant to engage with the insurgents because of religious constraints against violence within the Grand Mosque. The government had to wait for religious leaders to issue fatwas permitting the use of violence to retake the mosque.

Claims that the Mahdi had returned in the end provoked only death and violence. After two weeks of assaults and siege, the insurgents were killed or worn down and Saudi forces moved in. 255 people were killed and 560 injured. When the Ayatollah Khomeini blamed Americans and Jews for the seizure, anti-American sentiment was stirred among Muslims around the world, prompting demonstrations in Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Pakistan. In Islamabad, a mob went so far as to overrun the U.S. embassy, killing two Americans.7

The insurgents who seized the mosque were motivated by religious imperatives, and in calling for support from the populace in Mecca they appealed to religion. The justification for their claims rested on religion and religious texts. Such a remarkable and deadly act compels us to ask: what is religion, that it could bring both peaceful pilgrims and bloodthirsty insurgents to the same place in 1979? What is religion that both the insurgents and the Saudi government would look to it for justifications that seem, to an outside observer, to border on the absurd?

WHAT IS RELIGION?

Any systematic inquiry into a topic must begin with clear definitions. In the case of religion, however, coming up with such a definition inevitably leads to trouble. Significant problems accompany any attempt to define the word ‘religion’. If we define it too narrowly, not all the world’s religions will be covered and the definition will be useless. But if our definition is too broad, it will be too vague to be of any practical use.

To illustrate the problem with too constricted definitions, consider the question that has often been brought up as one of the central questions of religion—the existence of god. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy includes belief in the existence of a god or gods as part of its enumeration of fundamental religious traits. But already we are on shaky ground.

Buddhism is a major world religion by any measure, yet it is essentially atheistic.8 The intent of spiritual practice in Buddhism is to alleviate human suffering through the attainment of nirvana.9 The existence of a creator god is specifically rejected, and having faith in a supreme deity is actually considered an impediment to the goal of attaining nirvana.10 The worldview of Buddhism is also decidedly atheistic. The cosmos is seen…

as regulated by impersonal laws of cause and effect. There is no such thing as divine intervention. Nature is impartial. It cannot be flattered, nor does it grant special favors upon request.11

Jainism is an Indian religion that prescribes self-control and nonviolence toward all living things as the means by which its followers can attain freedom from suffering. The Jains are among the most peaceful of all the world’s religious people, yet they do not believe in a creator god. Instead, they believe that the universe evolves by interactions between matter and energy as governed by the laws of nature. Accordingly, they are very studious of nature and knowledgeable about its workings. Where other religions direct reverence towards a deity, Jains direct their reverence toward all forms of life.

Among the religions native to India, several of the major schools of Hindu thought are either explicitly atheistic or do not require a belief in the existence of gods. Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta school accepts belief in gods as part of the spiritual journey, but ultimately teaches a monistic view that the ultimate reality is that all things are one—an ineffable, formless unity which he calls Brahman. The Hindu Vaisheshika System holds that all that exists is formed as atoms move, combine, and break apart according to an impersonal force or law rather than divine will. The Sankhya System, which is the oldest in Hindu philosophy, takes as its goal the end of human suffering. It also explicitly rejects the existence of a creator god on the grounds that “a thing is not made out of notion” and that “creator and created are one.”12 Historian Will Durant remarks of India: “in this most religious and philosophical of nations it is nothing unusual to find religions and philosophies without a god.”13

Among the religions that do believe in the existence of god, there is not only widespread disagreement but outright contradiction—sometimes even within the same faith tradition. Polytheism is the belief in a plurality of gods, each with its own associated rituals and mythologies. Polytheistic beliefs do not necessarily contradict one another. For example, the ancient Romans were content to assume that what the Greeks meant by “Zeus” was roughly equivalent to what they meant by “Jupiter.” It was understood that different peoples worshipped different pantheons, and this was not typically perceived as problematic. However, there is comparatively little consistency of worship among polytheists—some individuals specialize in worshipping a particular deity, while others worship different gods at different times. As circumstances change, the customs or rites of worship may also change.

Monotheistic religions are even more explicitly contradictory. Whereas two different polytheistic religions could coexist, polytheism is rejected by monotheistic faiths as false or deluded. Since monotheists believe in one god, the different monotheistic faiths also directly contradict one another. It is not possible, for instance, simultaneously to be a Jew who follows Yahweh and to be a Muslim who follows Allah. To a believing Jew, many of a Muslim’s metaphysical views are wrong (and vice versa).

In addition to this, some monotheistic religions embrace different notions of the divine. Trinitarian beliefs in Christian thought are an example. According to most Christian traditions, God is one but has three persona or aspects: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Many denominations further recognize that the person of Jesus essentially has two natures, being both god and man at one and the same time. Other denominations are Unitarian, rejecting the Trinity, while some Trinitarians, such as the Egyptian Copts, hold the monophysite doctrine (i.e., the belief that Christ has a single nature, combining god and man). Therefore, even within this one faith tradition there are radical and even contradictory opinions about god. Both Judaism and Islam regard the Christian Trinity as not even monotheistic at all.

If we choose another trait to be a defining feature of religion, we will inevitably run into the same problem. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy also includes the distinction between sacred and profane as a religious trait. Yet, as Winston King has observed, this distinction itself is informed by the western religious tradition. ‘Sacred’ means something set apart, while ‘profane’ means outside the sacred place. This dichotomy doesn’t apply to Hinduism, where “almost everything can be and is given a religious significance by some sect.”14 With Taoism, Confucianism, and Shintoism, the religious life is thought of in terms of harmony between the natural and the human order. The dichotomy between sacred and profane has no place in this approach—yet these three (or Taoism and Shintoism at least) are typically considered religions.

Whichever trait we choose we find this problem; not all religions share the trait. Even those that do share it may do so in ways considered completely contradictory. Sometimes the contradictions can be found within the same faith tradition. Yet, if we broaden our definitions so as to be sure to include every religion we end up with something too broad to be useful.

ABRAHAMIC VS. DHARMIC SYSTEMS

Religious studies scholar Arvind Sharma has identified another crucial problem with attempts to define religion. The issue he finds lies in the fact that the approach, and even the word ‘religion’ itself, is decisively shaped by an Abrahamic worldview. In this context, ‘Abrahamic’ refers to the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They are so- called because of how each traces its lineage back to the Biblical patriarch Abraham, who according to tradition enjoyed a special covenant with God.

Sharma identifies three concepts that characterize Abrahamic religions. They are conclusive, meaning that followers believe themselves to be in possession of final or ultimate truth. They are exclusionary, meaning that followers belong to a community that shares in possession of the faith and those outside the community do not possess it. And they are separative, meaning that religion is regarded as a distinct and separable component of culture, such that anyone belonging to any culture can, say, choose to become a Christian.15

The Abrahamic faiths are certainly conclusive in Sharma’s sense. In the book of Exodus the “Children of Israel” (that is, the Jews) are described as possessing the Law of God and the Word of God in the form of the Torah. In the quotation used from the book of John at the beginning of this chapter, Jesus describes himself as “the way and the truth” and insists that “No one comes to the father except through me.” Islam is also conclusive in this sense, and understands itself not as a new religion but as a reestablishment of the only true religion which had been given to the Jews and the Christians but lost. Hence, Allah says to the Muslims: “This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.”16 Interestingly, Sharma notes that both Christianity and Judaism have somewhat relaxed their positions when it comes to conclusive claims about possessing the truth, but Islam has not.17

The Abrahamic faiths are also demonstrably exclusionary in Sharma’s sense. The Hebrew Bible (known to Christians as the Old Testament) describes the Israelites as “treasured people out of all the people on the face of the earth.”18 The Israelites are also explicitly called god’s chosen people who have a special covenant with him—clearly an ethnocentric and exclusionary claim.19 In the Christian New Testament, Jesus says:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.20

This passage has typically been interpreted as a warning to Christian communities to expect persecution from others on account of their faith. The expectation is that the community of Christians will be opposed by others who are their enemies. If anything, Islam is even more rabidly exclusionary: “whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him.”21

On the issue of being separative, Judaism is somewhat different from Christianity and Islam since it does not actively seek converts as they do. Sharma characterizes this difference as a difference in degree of enthusiasm rather than a difference in kind since Judaism does accept converts and one cannot at the same time be a Jew (meaning in this context a follower of the Jewish religion) and also a Christian or a Muslim.22 For all three religions, Sharma says:

It is not enough for one to say that one is a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim; it also means that one must be part of a mutually exclusive social groupings [sic] associated with the synagogue, the church and the mosque respectively.23

Sharma distinguishes these characteristics of the Abrahamic faiths from what he calls the “dharmic” position on religion. The word he uses comes from the Sanskrit word ‘dharma’, which is used on two levels in classical Hindu thought. At the level of the individual, dharma refers to one’s station or stage in life and the values and actions appropriate to it. At the level of general humanity, it refers to purely common human values like truth and nonviolence. In this context, the idea of changing one’s dharma makes little sense. You can change your station in life or pass through different stages of life, but these changes do not constitute changing your “religion” in the sense used by the Abrahamic faiths.24

Hinduism represents a prime example of the dharmic religious position. Christianity and Islam teach that man lacks salvation, then offer that salvation to all who join. But the Hindu position offers salvation and does not even require that one become a Hindu.25 It is therefore neither exclusionary nor separative in the Abrahamic sense. The religions of the Far East are also dharmic in this sense. Sharma points to a poll of Japanese religious views in which 95% of the population described themselves as Shinto and 76% of the same population also said they were Buddhist.26 Imagine if 95% of Americans claimed they were Christian but 76% said they were also Muslim!

Interestingly, the word “religion” itself shows the influence of the three characteristics which Sharma identifies with the Abrahamic faiths. It comes from a Latin verb meaning “to tie up” or “to bind,” in the sense of binding together a community of believers. But if Sharma is right, dharmic religions do not “bind up” their believers in this way. In fact, Buddhism and Hinduism in particular have the explicit goal of freeing man from suffering. Could it be that even asking the question “what is religion” we are already stacking the deck against dharmic traditions?

Religious conflicts are the most difficult and unsolvable of the problems facing humanity. Ethnic, linguistic, racial, and territory conflicts all have some objective element to them. That is, they can be measured with some amount of objectivity and resolved accordingly. But religions do not yield themselves to objective scrutiny.

In the case of dharmic faiths such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, this lack of objective scrutiny is not practically problematic. They do not claim a monopoly on spiritual or empirical truth. Buddhists, for instance, are not in the habit of blowing people up if they refuse to meditate. But the Abrahamic faiths are unyielding. They claim to be in exclusive possession of the truth, while at the same time they do not provide the means for us to verify their claims.

For practical purposes, Judaism’s exclusivist claims are not significant. For most of their history Jews have not sought political power over others, and they do not actively seek converts among non-Jews. Christianity’s exclusivist claims, meanwhile, have become moderate. Since the age of the European Enlightenment, Christianity has become one of the most inclusive and open-minded religions in the world—theologically, culturally, social, and politically. The Christian peoples of the world are culturally diverse and as a rule quite hospitable to non-Christians living among them.

With regard to Islam, however, the story is quite different. Islam does not permit either Muslims or non-Muslims to test its theological, political, or existential claims. It does not permit its doctrines to be critically examined. Instead, it regards its doctrines as absolute and infallible truths. Although Islam’s claims are metaphysical, the implications of its claims are practical and existential. The rest of the world cannot simply accept what Islam says without question.

When his reasoning led him to this same point, the Scottish philosopher David Hume advocated the abandonment of metaphysics:

Accurate and just reasoning is the only catholic remedy fitted for all persons and dispositions and is alone able to subvert that abstruse philosophy and metaphysical jargon which, being mixed up with popular superstition, renders it in a manner impenetrable to careless reasoners and gives it the air of science and wisdom.27

Hume advocates a scientific and empirical approach as the one best suited to the advancement and improvement of human life. Metaphysical claims, such as the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions, cannot guide any serious intellectual inquiry.

Since the metaphysical claims of the Abrahamic religions are matters of revelation and faith, there is no way to acquire genuine knowledge about them or to choose between them. With Judaism and Christianity we do not need to make such a choice. There are thousands of books published against Christianity in the Christian West, and millions of atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians are free to openly profess their beliefs or non- beliefs. People are not persecuted for their metaphysical values.

Islam, however, is a unique case. As a matter of historical fact, Islam has sought to exterminate non-Islamic religions (Hinduism and Buddhism for example) and has enslaved the people it could not destroy. It has justified invasions by saying it had to convert, dominate, or destroy the infidels. It politically humiliates and subjugates its opponents, calling them dhimmi. Even today, criticism of Islam is not allowed in Islamic countries; in at least 13 Islamic countries, anyone who openly espouses atheism or criticizes Muhammad or the Qur’an can face the death penalty.28 Finally, Islam alone among the major world religions mandates the death penalty for anyone who dares to leave the religion. No other religion makes both criticism and apostasy a capital crime. Therefore, we have no choice but to criticize Islam by the only means available to us: reason and empirical evidence.