Religion and Theology

In the influential book Primitive Culture, Edward Tylor defined religion as belief in Supernatural Beings. This minimalist definition of religion is a reference to traditionalist emphasis on religion as a private and intellectual activity. This is in contrast with Durkheim behavioral approach. In his work Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Emile Durkheim defined religion as a system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things   things which are set apart and forbidden. Those who belong to this moral community constitute a Church. For Durkheim, religion is inseparable from the idea of a Church.

In the search for an essentialist definition of religion, according to  McCutcheon, there is a need to differentiate the spiritual from the religious. For Tylor, the spiritual is synonymous with the religious. The religious realm is a manifestation of the spiritual realm   in short, the religious is the outward expression of spiritual belief. Spiritual belief is nothing more than a deep, solitary, and intellectual activity. As McCutcheon argues

In Tylors onetime popular definition we find the remnants of a philosophically idealist era in European history, when ones membership within certain groups was thought to be primarily dependent upon whether one believed in something   rather than membership being the result of collective behaviors   (1)

Evidently, McCutcheons concern is the determinacy of religious essence (whether religion has an essence). In order to address this issue, he presented a number of contending theories on religion. Tylors pragmatic definition of religion is an example of a classic definitional strategy (essentialism). Intellectual tradition treats religion as an inner process   a process of believing in something, expressed in the form of an essence. Scholars who valued this tradition thought it unwise to define religion based on what they took to be its secondary, external aspects (McCutcheon  2). These scholars argued that it is motive rather membership which defines the determinacy of religious experience. Tylors essentialist definition of religion is a naturalist account of a monothetic framework.

Other philosophers offered essentialist definition of religion. The German theologian Rudolf Otto argued that what defines religion was the participants feeling of great respect, admiration, and fascination. For Friedrich Schleiermacher, the essence was generally the feeling of total dependence. For Paul Tillich, the essence was power. For the historian of religion, Mircea Eliade, the experience of the Sacred defined the essence of religion.

These essentialist definitions of religion are not without value. The essence defines identity, expression, form, and substance. As Bertrand Russell observes

Uniformity is an expression of empiricism. It is the essence of an essence, apparently because it is directed to a single reference point. Variety, when viewed from a broader perspective, is actually a function of uniformity, for uniformity is the formal substance of order. Now, the duty of the scholar is to determine the ultimate form of uniformity, and in narrow perspective, appreciate the complexity of creation (92).

However, according to McCutcheon, the search for a universal definition of religion is problematic because of the inherent contradictions in concept-construction and the complexity of religious experience. As McCutcheon notes

Much as with a a light switch that can either be on or off   theres no such thing as a light being only partially on   essentialist definitions lead one to name something as religion if, and only if, it possesses a certain quality. That just what characterizes this essential quality differs   from one essentialist to another ought not to be overlooked (3).

Concept-construction has inherent contradictions. To define a concept is to narrow the application of an idea. Most of the time, ideas have multiple and sometimes contradictory meanings (even those situated in similar conditions). To different scholars, a concept may have different definitions. This complicates the process, as different scholars subscribe to different schools of thought.

However, not all ideas have contradictory or overlapping meanings. In economics, the term GDP has an empirical definition. The same case can be said about enertia, acceleration, and demand. This is not the case with the concept of religion. Marxian tradition defines religion as an outward expression of the substructure. Classical tradition defines religion as universal belief in supernatural beings. Behavioral tradition limit the application of religion to behavioral conducts. Freudian tradition defines religion as an expression of libidinal energy. The implication religion is a complicated concept because it has a broad subjective application (it is subjective in the sense that religious experience differs from individual to individual, from culture to culture, from period t period). McCutcheon is fully aware of this issue since one of his objectives in writing this article is to expose the difficulty in extracting a substantive (essential) element of religion (the other purpose is to show the intricate nature of the religious experience).

The Greeks divided religion into three spheres piety (eusebia), mystery (myo or fear for danger), and gnosis (esoteric knowledge). Piety is the quality of doing the right thing -an element of conscience. Mystery refers to cults in which members were initiated into the mysterious workings of the cosmic order (McCutcheon 3). Gnosis, on the other hand refers to a tradition in which ones personal salvation was thought to depend upon gaining special, spiritual knowledge (McCutcheon 3). What is the relevance of this issue to religion Simply put, it is often easy to categorize and provide examples of religious experience but difficult to set a universal, nomothetic definition of religion. This is the general purpose of McCutcheons article.

For McCutcheon, the study of religion is always problematic because of the complexity of religious experience and the ambiguous nature of religion. For Mircea Eliade, religion is an outward irrational experience concerned with the sacred in its whole form. Eliade offers an indirect definition of religion. According to him, the sacred is the opposite of the profane. Now, the opposite of the profane is explained by the concept of hierophany. Hierophany is simply the manifestation of the sacred. In his work The Sacred and the Profane, (Sacred Space and Making the World Sacred   Chapter), he defines the character of hierophany as

For it is the break effected in space that allows the world to be constituted, because it reveals the fixed point, the central axis for all future orientation. When the sacred manifests itself in hierophany, there is only a break in the homogeneity of space there is also revelation of of an absolute reality, opposed to the nonreality of the vast surrounding expanse. The manifestation of the sacred founds ontologically founds the world. In the homogenous and infinite expanse, in which no point of reference is possible and hence no orientation can be established, the hierophany reveals an absolute fixed point, a center.

What is profanity Profanity is the indifference to the sacred. A profane individual does not necessarily rejects the sacred. Profanity is simply the opposite (but not a rejection) of the sacred. Rejection implies choice. Hence, it implies that individuals determine which actions are mutually exclusive. As Eliade correctly observes

It must be added at once that such a profane experience is never found in the pure scale. To whatever he may have desacralized the world, the man who has made his choice in favor of a profane life never succeeds in completely doing away with religious behavior  I will appear that even the most desacralized existence still preserves traces of a religious revaluation of the world (23, italics mine).

Religious experience has a fixed point in space. Indeed, the purpose of religious experience is to find uniformity in the chaos of homogeneity. It is living in the real sense. The profane life, on the other hand, maintains the homogeneity and the relativity of space. The profane life is simply a general reference to indifference, amalgamation, and lucidity. As Eliade argues

No true orientation is possible is now possible, for the fixed point no longer enjoy a unique ontological status it appears and disappears in accordance with the needs of the day. Properly speaking, there is no longer any world, there are only fragments of a shattered quagmire   the obligation of an existence incorporated into an industrial society (24).

Central to Eliades theory is the idea of a religious man. The religious man is the representative of pre-modern societies. He is the object of religious experience. He treats nature as the subject of religion   religion in the traditionalist sense. The religious man strives to live with the sacred because he wanted access to the ultimate form of reality and to the power associated with the sacred. The religious man is, in a sense, an expression of self-efficacy. He imitates the gods in order to attain perfection (at least in some cultures). If perfection is absent, imitation serves as a conduit of obedience. Obedience is a behavior associated with command. This implies that the power of the sacred is in itself self-manifest. The religious man follows out of the religious experience itself. As Eliade argues

In such cases, the sign fraught with religious meaning, introduces an absolute element and puts an end to relativity and confusion. Something that does not belong to this world has manifested itself sporadically and in so doing has indicated an orientation or determined a course of conduct (27).

The religious experience is also manifested through signs. Signs are expressions of religiosity. But they are also mediums for extracting meaning. For example, when no sign manifests itself, it is usually provoked. For example, a sort of vocation is performed with the help of animals because it is them who know what place is fit to receive the sanctuary of the village. A sign may also be asked. This is to put an end to the tension and anxiety caused by relativity and disorientation.

There is another concept related to the religious experience   the chaos and the cosmos. At face, two concepts are visible, but clearly these concepts are twin concepts. Hence, they are treated as a single reference point. The cosmos is the known world   the place of materiality and certainty. Beyond the cosmos is the uninhabited, unknown, and indiscriminate space. It is the territory that extends beyond itself. Now, the world is a universe within which the sacred has already manifested itself in which time and reality is possible. The religious man fixes the limits of his sense experience and finds meanings from the world. In sum, this behavioral tendency is a reference to the sacred.

Conclusion
The essential difference between McCutcheon and Eliade is their treatment of religion. For McCutcheon, the study of religion is a problematic endeavor. For Eliade, religion is a manifestation of the sacred (as opposed to the profane). McCutcheon offers a pragmatic approach to the study of religion (identify appropriate analytical frameworks). Eliade, on the other hand, offers an epistemological approach to the study of religion.