Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,134
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Smart, in the title, refers to Roderick Ninian Smart, a Scottish philosopher who offered up a model for thinking about religiosity beyond the so-called "Western definition" one tends to find in dictionaries and introductory textbooks published in the English-speaking world. The Western Definition heavily emphasizes doctrinal beliefs and "claims" about the universe, with a strong implication of exclusivism to only one tradition. The problem is that while this is a serviceable strategy for defining religion in Europe, where most people are either adherents to or renegades from Christianity, it doesn't really explain how people think or relate to religion in other cultural environments where creeds and orthodoxies are less emphasized by local traditions. It also fails to really describe the bulk of what religious adherents actually do or experience. If religion is a merely collection of certain beliefs, we should expect it to materially manifest as something like a philosophy club, or maybe a Christian science reading room. But religions are actually social communities, as much as if not more so than they are sources of philosophical claims, and indeed if you spend much time conversing with religious people, you quickly come to realize that as much as they might profess belief in certain claims if asked, they aren't born philosophers by interest, and the bulk of their time and energy is devoted to other the dimensions of religious experience.
In his own popular textbook, The World Religions (1989) Smart proposed that religion is actually composed along seven dimensions. All religions can be described in terms of at least most of these dimensions, and they often differ relative to one another as much by their emphasis on one over the next (ie, Buddhism as strongly experiential where Mormonism is heavily ethical and doctrinal in emphasis) and different dimensions might be more or less important depending on circumstance. The dimensions aren't in competition; they form a kind of ecosystem of faith that the religious inhabit through their personal or sociological contexts. I'm offering up Smart's dimensions for anyone who hasn't come across them before, in hopes that they will help you to think about religion more expansively and critically, and realize that when someone identifies as "religious", there are quite a lot of things they might mean by that beyond simply spouting doctrines or believing this or that about the book of Genesis.
They are (I've borrowed this particular list from a helpful flier I picked up at the Jedi temple in the City a while back, but I believe it was originally published by www.understandingreligion.org.uk as they seem to have the same list posted on their website, so that is what I've quoted):
There are a couple of useful things to do with this rubric. It can be helpful to look and each criterion individually and look at how they are expressed in any particular tradition under study. It's also useful to study the interactions between them. For instance, thinking about how beliefs are expressed and reinforced through ritual life, or how institutional traditions have a way of manifesting in certain genres of speech and material production.
Some questions for consideration:
Have you ever thought about religion in terms of more dimensions than belief? How do you think our social conversations about religion might be different if traditions other than Christianity held more prominent positions in the anglophone world?
In his own popular textbook, The World Religions (1989) Smart proposed that religion is actually composed along seven dimensions. All religions can be described in terms of at least most of these dimensions, and they often differ relative to one another as much by their emphasis on one over the next (ie, Buddhism as strongly experiential where Mormonism is heavily ethical and doctrinal in emphasis) and different dimensions might be more or less important depending on circumstance. The dimensions aren't in competition; they form a kind of ecosystem of faith that the religious inhabit through their personal or sociological contexts. I'm offering up Smart's dimensions for anyone who hasn't come across them before, in hopes that they will help you to think about religion more expansively and critically, and realize that when someone identifies as "religious", there are quite a lot of things they might mean by that beyond simply spouting doctrines or believing this or that about the book of Genesis.
They are (I've borrowed this particular list from a helpful flier I picked up at the Jedi temple in the City a while back, but I believe it was originally published by www.understandingreligion.org.uk as they seem to have the same list posted on their website, so that is what I've quoted):
The Ritual Dimension
The ritual and practical dimension of religion covers all aspects of performed religion, this includes formal ritual (activities with rules surrounding the performance and motivation) as well as more informal, everyday practices (activities with a religious motivation or character).
Some examples of ritual are Christian baptism, Hindu yajna, and Zoroastrian navjote ceremonies. This dimension also encompasses other activities that may not be strictly regulated, but which nonetheless form a consistent practice - for instance yoga, prayer, and meditation.
Experiential Dimension
The experiential (or emotional) dimension relates to personal experiences felt by the individual, for example joy, bliss, mystery, anger, despair, and so on, where these experiences are in relation to a religious experience.
It can also encompass more than just emotion, but the quality of experience of entering a mosque, embarking on a pilgrimage, or taking amrit (the Sikh initiation ceremony).
Equally, we can find examples throughout the history of religion of encounters with deities, spirits, demons, and other experiences which indicate some sort of contact with an unseen world, sources of inspiration, and moments of revelation.
Mythological Dimension
The mythological (or narrative) dimension describes the storytelling aspect of religion, whether the stories are believed to be true, fictitious, historical or mythological.
Religions are often sustained through the practice of repeating narratives that help to explain why the world exists, and what our place is in it. Myths can also store information in symbols, without stating the underlying meaning outright; they can help to communicate across generations important ideas about what it means to be human.
The preservation of these myths and narratives can be oral, written, or pictorial.
Doctrinal Dimension
The doctrinal (or philosophical) dimension refers to the way that religions tend to formalise ideas about the world, and create logical systems of meaning. There are vast and complex philosophical traditions associated with religions from around the world – in the West this might be found in the Catechisms of the Catholic Church, or the philosophical writings of Ibn Sina. In order for religious systems to make sense of the world, they have to make sense, and this naturally leads to a process of structure and logic.
Religious philosophy and doctrine can become highly complex; the philosophical schools of Hinduism range over a wide area, and often provide contrasting viewpoints on the nature of the soul (or atman), its relationship to god, and whether god is one or many, personal or impersonal. Hinduism is a very diverse tradition, but even seemingly unified religions can be filled with internal disputes and disagreements when it comes to these issues.
Ethical Dimension
The ethical (or legal) dimension describes the way that religion tends to provide guidance on how to live one’s life, generally in order to achieve happiness in this life or the next. The promotion of a happy and harmonious life can be found across the globe, and religions weave this into a larger context, placing human action within a universal system of right and wrong, good and evil.
Institutional Dimension
The institutional (or social) dimension represents the way that religious adherents, as they group together, will tend to form organised bodies that behave collectively. They might develop a hierarchy of powerful persons, and they might provide some social structure for the wider society. Decisions about what the religion is, and where it’s going, might be made in a top-down fashion, but equally (as in the case of the Quakers) might be made in a distributed, democratic way.
Material Dimension
The material dimension describes how religions lead to the creation of material artefacts – from sculptures and artwork to buildings and cities. The material dimension of religion provide evidence for historians and archaeologists, but also enriches the lives of contemporary religious adherents as their beliefs and traditions find life in the world through physical media.
There are a couple of useful things to do with this rubric. It can be helpful to look and each criterion individually and look at how they are expressed in any particular tradition under study. It's also useful to study the interactions between them. For instance, thinking about how beliefs are expressed and reinforced through ritual life, or how institutional traditions have a way of manifesting in certain genres of speech and material production.
Some questions for consideration:
Have you ever thought about religion in terms of more dimensions than belief? How do you think our social conversations about religion might be different if traditions other than Christianity held more prominent positions in the anglophone world?