[lbo-talk] comment on Zuckerman (was: "Damn, did God piss in your cheerios?"

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Thu Jun 9 10:12:32 PDT 2005


Jeffrey Fisher:
> indeed, this is a substantial problem, and those of us who study
> religion recognize that we are constantly in the process of defining
> the object of study, and even that there simply is no single object of
> study. in other words, in some very important ways, there is no such
> thing as "religion". now, obviously, we think there is something we're
> working on. but what exactly is it?
>

It is indeed a common problem of cross-national studies (I do a bit of comparative work myself, but not on religion). One way to approach is to develop a definition that is broad enough to encompass all forms of a phenomenon but specific enough to render it characteristic features. Mircea Eliade (_Patterns in Comparative Religion_) took that approach, defining religion as any belief in the supernatural or "sacred" (if memory serves, but I suggest checking it out).

If we take such a broad definition, religion (=belief in the supernatural) we can include nearly all forms of religiosity in different societies, and yet we can point out to its characteristic feature - the evocation of a power that transcends the natural order i.e. human everyday experience. This concept also implies its own explanation - human experience. People experience powers greater than themselves from the day they are born - they parents are "gods" to them - they give them life, they nurture and protect them (most of the time) and they have the unconceivable to a child qualities such as great physical strength, knowledge and authority. In their adolescence and adult life people experience the power of community or society as whole (as a collective repository of culture) as well as the phenomena that overpower them but which they cannot understand (such as "natural" disasters, diseases, "celestial" events such as eclipse, "movement" of the stars, etc.).

So given these experiences, it is not surprising that most people naturally come to accept th existence of the "supernatural" i.e. something beyond their everyday life experience and beyond their cognitive capacity to comprehend the world. But this natural predisposition to accept the supernatural is often hijacked by entrepreneuring individuals who provide a "closure" to that knowledge gap, i.e. fill it with anthropomorphic stories that common people can understand and craft those stories in such a way that it legitimizes either their own power or the power of their sponsors.

So the religion you are talking about


> higher" by the name/term "god". maybe it is, but that's a far cry from
> believing in a personal god who demands you go to church every week,
> pray at least daily, and spend your time in the kitchen/confine your
> wife to the kitchen.

is really a bastardized version of a belief in the supernatural - basically bullshit that is spoon fed by the priestly class and its sponsors to the masses to maintain its power in society. I do not think that this bullshit deserves any response other than that once given by bat'ushka Stalin - that for some people four wall are three too many. I'd say it applies to every authority figure unless proved otherwise.

However, the non-bastardized belief in the supernatural still requires an explanation, and that explanation can be found in the human experience.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list