Religion is an enormously important topic for the study of human culture. Scholars have offered a great variety of approaches, ranging from detailed analyses of the ritual and moral structure of specific faith traditions to broad sociological functional definitions that consider any system of beliefs and practices to be a religion as long as they have some socially significant function. As a result, the field of Religious Studies is one of the most diverse and active of all social sciences and humanities disciplines.
It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the basic subject matter of this research is often a source of ongoing controversy. Disputes over the nature of religion cut across disciplinary boundaries, including anthropology, history, philosophy, psychology, and religious studies, and even into other areas of inquiry such as cognitive science.
The debate over the nature of religion has a number of roots, but it is most commonly understood as a dispute over the way that we define the concept of religion. Most scholars accept that a substantive definition of religion should be a category-concept that includes all those systems of beliefs and practices that are generally recognized to have some religious significance. Substantive definitions typically include a combination of elements such as a belief in supernatural beings or spirits, a commitment to a particular set of values, and the use of sacred texts, objects, or symbols.
Some scholars, however, have criticized the use of substantive definitions as a tool for analyzing religion. They argue that the assumptions baked into the term religion obscure the historical realities that they are meant to describe. For example, scholars such as Victor H. Mair have argued that the concept of religion is a modern semantic invention that went hand in hand with European colonialism and that we should stop treating it as if it corresponds to something that exists outside of the sphere of contemporary western influence.
Another criticism is that substantive definitions are ethnocentric, that they reflect only the peculiar characteristics of Western religion (especially Christianity) and fail to take into account faith traditions that emphasize immanence or oneness, such as some forms of Buddhism and Hinduism. This criticism is also related to the argument that substantive definitions are too focused on the intellectual side of religion and neglect its existential dimensions, such as a sense of the numinous, the sense of the presence of some ineffable other that causes believers to feel terrified and fascinated.
These and other debates over the nature of religion are likely to continue in the future. In the United States, Congress—particularly the Senate—played a vital role in the last century in leading the national discussion of religion’s place in society, and it should play this same role in the future as it grapples with the many complex issues that surround the practice of religion.