Religion is a word that has brought about different thoughts and concept in our modern world.in this paper I would describe the concept and definition used by Schilbrack and Jonathan before comparing the approaches they used and finally discuss the significant in my conclusion of religion, Firstly I will deal with Schilbrack’s concept and definition of religion before I discuss that of Jonathan.
Generally, scholars have argued and defined the word “Religion”, which could be or not in a way be in the reality of its concept. According to Schilbrack “several scholars have argued about the concept of “Religion” which could be manufactured, constructed, invented, or imagined but they do not support the concept to the objective reality of religion” (Kevin Schilbrack, 2010). Schilbrack was able to divide and evaluate the critiques of religion into three parts which are: Religion as a Social Construction, Historical and Ideological concept.
“However, there are so many theories about religion while some focus on content and some on substance and some on functions” (Henriksen, J. O. 2017, p1). This shows that religion is a word that needs attention from every angle, it could be philosophy, theology, sociology and so on. . “but basically, the most fruitful perspective on religions (including from the point of view of the philosophy of religion) is to see what they provide in terms of resources for orientation and transformation in the different realms of human life” ( Henriksen, J. O. 2017,p.2).
According to Schilbrack “Religion” has lost its particular purpose, which the definition is wide and therefore, a specification of the concept of religion based on an ontological distinction which would not work. So, the alternative strategy for providing a more inclusive definition of religion is to ignore any reference or works to a substantial ontological strategy or category and basically focus on some of the functions of religion (2013, p.295).
In my understanding Schilbrack has a way of defining religion which he simply called Strategy, or I may call that Approach, which is the strategy Schilbrack talked about among many others known as “Functionalist” (2013, p.292). The main point of Schilbrack is to provide a strategic definition, which is something that is useful to a specific range of a discipline of religion studies.
In an interview with Schilbrack by Matty Sheedy, Schilbrack was able to highlight the three main arguments which he also called “abolitionist” and they are described in His concept of Religion.
Schilbrack suggested that we should drop the concept of religion because it is a conceptual invention of the modern West, because the invention has given a misleading and distorting concept which is used to describe, and because it has been used as ideological support for colonialist and imperialist projects by portraying non-western cultures as either superstitious and backwards or Godless and needing salvation. According to Schilbrack who happens to be a retentionist and has continued to use the concept agreed to the fact that the three criticisms which proves: none of the facts shows that the term does not capture the interesting aspect of how we speak and act. Schilbrack judged that the abolitionist is not at their strongest when they merely repeat the social constructionists point that “religions are chimerical or there are no religions” (Matt Sheedy. 2013).
On the other hand, Jonathan Smith concept of religion was “Comparative” i.e. “if you only know one religion then you know no religion” (Smith, J. Z. 1998,, p.269). What he tries to say is that when you have an idea of other religion then you are able to establish comparison, so for us to understand how one understands and sees religion we need to first understand the religion concept to understand religions, which will lead me to the concepts of religion by Johnathan Smith:
Religion is not a major category, but it is what is outside that is practiced.
Religion doesn’t go for one thing; it has the content of universality (Something that goes for everything)
Religion is from outside i.e. it is an Anthropological not a Theological concept. (that is everyone has religion).
Religion was not on belief it was on ritual practices from the time of old. i.e. through practices one can identify its religion. (how people live and what they do).
Reformation focuses on what people belief from one module to another from cultures to other religion.
Religion also refers to the state of mind. (Smith, J. Z. 1998).
“Indeed, a lot of scholars have argued about religion and some say religion doesn’t exist in the first place- there is only what we call culture, and religion is simply a significant aspect of human culture”. (Austin Cline.2019). There are clear lines and distinction between culture and religion scholars have argued and still it may not be ascertain, however, Austin Cline who quoted Jonathan Smith because in his article he was able to identify the fact that Jonathan was able to compare religion in the concept of belief and ritualistic view.
In one of the books written by Johnathan Smith... “religion is solely the creation of the scholarly work or study. It is created for the scholars and their analytical purposes by his imaginative acts of comparison and generalization. Therefore, religion has no existence apart from academical purposes” (Smith, J. Z. 1982.p.18).
Smith also showed in His book that religion must be constructed as conventional, anthropological, historical, and as an exercise of imagination. In His examinations or approach religion emerges as “the product of historically and geographical situated human ingenuity, cognition, and curiosity which is simply put as a result of human labor, which has always been one of the decisive but wholly ordinary human beings create the worlds in which they live and make sense of them” (Smith, J. Z. 1982.p22-23.).
“Religion is the belief system that results into ceremonial behavior, religion in relation to ritual practice became an item in an inventory of cultural topics that could be presented either ethnographically in terms of a particular people, both Eden and Cieza which finds its alleged absence noteworthy. in a cross-cultural encyclopedia under the heading of “ritual” or “religion” (Smith, J. Z. 1998.p.269)
“According to smith religion came up in the 16th or 19th century as permeated word from culture because of its aspect or practice of culture in our present term “Religion”. In other words, the concept of religion was picked up from Christianity as a fragmentation of the Christian church” (Smith, J. Z. 1998).
Therefore, in my opinion or understanding to Jonathan’s concept or definition of religion I would rather say that He was a to define religion as a human way or activity which could deduced as religion being on its own i.e. independent or subordinate category.
Having seen their various concept and definitions used by these scholars I would like to show or compare some approaches used by Kevin Schilbrack as well as that of Jonathan Smith, both scholars have similar approaches but dealt with them differently. I would rather say they both did a constructive work which people could think that it wasn’t constructive enough. However, I would rather say that Schilbrack’s theory calls for a philosophical approach in dealing with it in the academic study of religions. Yea because the academic study is what stands in for religious studies, so for Schilbrack he tends to bring a philosophical, and more specific phenomenological approach in his theory. Therefore, Schilbrack’s theory helps us to see that for a long time now philosophy of religion has failed in a way to pay enough attention in dealing with the critical questions on religion. Whereas philosophy of religion is often defined by what Schilbrack rightly stand for in his assumption.
I would also say Schilbrack calls for philosophy of religion to be careful about its centralization category of religion, which has been conversationally discussed and engaged with other scholars that are also concerned about the same category , and reflective about the ways in which people who self-describe religion as religious activities and actually live their lives. Another point of Schilbrack’s account is also worthy of scholar’s critical observation which was to dismiss his challenges as fundamentally misguided or reasoning is to fail to appreciate the lived reality that philosophy of religion claims to be concerned with the first place. However, it might be that Jonathan Z. Smith could be right about religion in his approach being nothing more than an invention of the scholar’s study, i.e. religion is just a relatively recent invention and he dealt with it using this approach basically, then philosophy of religion should be critically dealt with reflectively about what follows from it. However, Jonathan Smith may not be totally right in his account or approach as well and Kevin Schilbrack’ in a way of being constructive in viewing religion(s) which makes the study geared towards raising what could be term used as “existential consciousness of philosophical inquiring. Also, Schilbrack’s approach is profoundly a contextualist, and his account and approach of religion is one that appreciates the important virtues of epistemic humanity and dialogical which is a multidisciplinary and comparative field of study.
Agree or not Schilbrack’s approach must not be ignored because the stakes are too high for philosophical approaches to the academic study of religion which may have traditionally called “religion” (Schilbrack, K. 2013). According to Smith he had a broad comparative approach as well but he was also phenomenological in his model just like Schilbrack and Smith tries to make us know that individually we may have failed to treat religion as a special or unique and not ontological sense that we may have lost its when it comes to religion. However ontologically it may not be unique so there is a problem with the translation process of the term.
Religion as unique from Smiths approach is not ontologically unique rather it is something that is lost according to smith he usually goes against our traditional ways of reading and thinking about religion, which the modern academic will go against. Reading through Smith’s books, articles, and as well as interviews smiths in his approach in dealing with the term religion, smith suggested the approach on reflexivity that is scholars and student of religious studies should have self-conscious, and self-reflexives in treating religion. According to smith Religion is an “anthropological not a theological category”( Smith, J. Z. 1998.p2) which means our thoughts as human is being needed as well as our acts which was what smith tries to use as an approach on dealing with the history of religion and its concept. It gives opportunity to make comparison with other scholarly works and theory on the same concept which gives room for criticism. But Schilbrack holds on to a substantial approach which is an Ontology approach i.e. religion has a claim of what it is. Because Religion has practices involved in it. One of Schilbrack’s goal is to articulate and begin to develop a vision for philosophy of religion as a global, practices- centered, and reflexive. He also seeks for a “new and productive” ways in which philosophy can contribute to the study of religions.
Schilbrack also gave an approach from a functionalist view, the functionalist is flexible, and they view from the cultural perspective of religion i.e. religion is dynamic, it’s opened and at the same time it is pragmatic. I noticed if religion can be said that it is opened then the term religion loses its real analogical value. Schilbrack also has a Pragmatic idea about religion and a Functionalist idea however, we would conclude because at some point Schilbrack will suggest that at some point for you to understand religion we have to understand religion as practices because it entails belief which proves that what you belief has an effect in one’s understanding and mindset. i.e., we must see religion from different practices then we can talk more of a pragmatic religion. However, knowing that the pragmatic idea is not constant discourse, cultural practices and an everyday phenomenon.
In general, Schilbrack had something in mind when writing and the approaches he used in dealing with criticism from various scholars which he did agree with the critics that the concept of “religion” is not guilty. i.e. the concept of religion was used to make some clarification and denoting the quality of cultures other than the dominant ideology of the modern west. Which means that he is also implicated in the topic of discussion. According to Schilbrack the concept of religion was used and is still in use to make comparison and to denote the quality of cultures other than his own view. Schilbrack also suggested that “there are no terms whose history or implications are free of politics”.i.e.... there is nothing we do without thinking or making use of our ideology. According to Schilbrack none of our ideology is neutral or none of our perspective is are neutral. In other words, according to Schilbrack there is no way we can study that which we call religious rituals, stories, experiences, institutions, and so on, without the acts of classification that makes possible Valid confirmation or comparison between cultures. Which is the reason he argued for retaining the word “religion”. (Schilbrack, K. 2010).
In conclusion I would start by discussing about the significance of both scholars in Historical study of religion. Religious study is one of the primary disciplines that provides chances and opportunity to understand the many beliefs, rituals, and criticism in the world of religious reality. However religious studies are academical which Johnathan smith would encourage students to be a part of with open minds, because it is academically enriching because it is transdisciplinary mode of inquiring and search which engenders deep intercultural literacy. Both scholars would encourage student in religious studies to develop the crucial aptitudes in critical thinking, communication competence, interpersonal awareness, and intercultural literacy which will help student and our global society.
However Schilbrack would portray the significant of historical study of religion because the studies of religion is to study the religions of the world in a manner that is comparative, factual, and open minded which could tend to avoid any hint of religious or non-religious or anti-religious belief system. So, to study or teach religion is a rhetorical exercise which could attempts to persuade students and people (or not) in a religion or system of ideas.
“Because teaching about religion or studying religion aims to make people or student ready to view things differently from philosophies, methodologies, moral systems and ritual practices that makes deep understanding of world cultures such as stimulating subject of intellectual interest” (Robertson, R. 1970).
REFERENCE
Cline, A. C. A., Humanism, a former regional director for the C. for S., writes, Atheism, L. E. A., & agnosticism. (n.d.). The Problem of Defining Religion, Mythology and Philosophy. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from Learn Religions website: https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-religion-250672
Matt Sheedy. (2013, January 16). Realism and ‘Religion’: An Interview with Kevin Schilbrack Pt. 1. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from Bulletin for the Study of Religion website: https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2013/01/6253/.
Henriksen, J. O. (2017). Religion as orientation and transformation: a maximalist theory (Vol. 90). Mohr Siebeck.
Robertson, R. (1970). The sociological interpretation of religion (p. 153). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schilbrack, K. (2010). Religions: Are there any? Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 78(4), 1112-1138.
Smith, J. Z. (1982). Imagining religion: from Babylon to Jonestown. University of Chicago Press p1-180.
Smith, J. Z. (1998). Religion, religions, religious. Critical terms for religious studies, 1998, 269-284.