Religion

Is religion based around God or can people have a religion without believing in God?

Comments

Religion seems to be what is sometimes called a "family resemblance" concept. If we try to tie it up in a neat definition that draws sharp lines between religions and non-religions, we're likely to fail. Instead, what we find is that there are various things we refer to as religions that resemble one another in a variety of ways. For example: although it would be a mistake to say that Buddhism avoids all notions of the supernatural, the idea of a creator God simply isn't part of any form of Buddhism that I've ever heard of. But Buddhism in its various forms is usually counted as a religion. There are many Unitarians who don't believe in God, but think of themselves as religious and as belonging to a religion. Even within familiar theistic traditions there are some interesting variations. The Christian theologian Paul Tillich wasn't a theist by any conventional accounting; his notion of the "Ground of Being" is not much like what most people thinnk of when they think of God.

So the answer seems to be yes: people can have a religion without believing in God. But it would be nice to have some clearer idea of what sorts of things get counted as religions. While it's far from perfect, the following proposal from the anthroplogist Clifford Geertz sheds at least some light. Geertz says that a religion is

" (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

While one could quibble with various parts of this proposal, it does draw attention to some typical features of religions. They involve systems of symbols -- images and ideas that have an affective and not simply literal import. The symbols tend to form at least some sort of a system, and the adherent of the religion tend to see the system as corresponding to something "out there" -- to something objective. That needn't mean God. It might be a moral order; it might be something like the Tao; it might be Tillich's "Ground of Being."

We would probably want to add that a religion isn't just a system of symbols. It's a social organization; it typically involves rituals of one sort or another; its practitioners may see their adherence to the religion as central to their identity.

Words like "typically" are the key here. It's of the nature of family resemblance concepts that what falls under them exhibits a good deal of variety, and the boundaries between what falls under the concept and what doesn't will be blurry. But this way of looking at religion makes it a little easier to see how it can make sense to talk of religion without God.

Read another response by Allen Stairs

Read another response about Religion