The World's Religions
Author: Huston Smith
A decidedly apologetic look at Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism (though I wish the Taoist section had been of a comparable length as the other sections), Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and a description of "primal" (tribal) religions.
The author claims that he will look at the positive side of religion, and he certainly fulfills that promise. Every religion is defended as an authentic and valuable outlook on life, with Smith taking neither a relativist (as he projects the important "truths" each religion provides) nor an absolutist (as Smith himself says, he will not choose one as being "better" or "more developed") position. Near the end it almost struck me as something of a romantic view (nearing the final sections on Christianity and the primal religions, though I found the early sections on Eastern religions less so). Ultimately Smith seems to conclude that religion, however it is practiced, is at least important, perhaps necessary for a sense of human meaning.
I'm not so sure. How much, after all, does one need religion? Well, certainly not everyone needs religion, as there exist agnostics (I am one) who have no faith. But Smith seems to suggest in the way of response that ideas like humanism, atheism, and rationalism are themselves "faiths."
But what is a faith? More specifically, what makes a religion? This question is of paramount importance if we are to determine how "necessary" religion is, and it is here that Smith's answer bothers me. If you are like me, you may have wondered why exactly Confucianism was included in a book on religion. Indeed, Smith considers it one. I disagree. Confucianism seems to lack something (as regards a religion) when I think of it. So what, then, is a religion? Smith, in defending his assertion of Confucianism as a religion, says:
Smith continues by describing Confucianism as changing the old Chinese religious emphasis from the Heaven to the Earth in regards to who has priority for us. I would call that practical instead of religious. Confucius valued tradition and concerns about heaven were important to him, as Smith says, but that does not make a religion. As for Smith's definitions of religion, the wide one can simply be exchanged with "culture" from my view with no real loss, and the narrower view, though much closer, seems to be missing something as regards Confucianism. It mentions a "transcendental ground of existence," which I agree is important. But Confucianism does nothing to describe that ground. Instead it simply looks to social order and concrete human action. A religion, in my view, has to have some sort of handle on what is considered "truth." Religions provide answers not simply to what a problem is and how we can fix it, but they purport to describe something about reality. While Smith's narrower definition does seem to at least indirectly state this (after all, having a transcendental ground to align one's self with requires that the transcendental be known), I don't think Confucianism does anything to identify that something. It is a social system for sure, and is very much a cultural viewpoint, but to call it a religion seems to be a stretch to me.
Now that that massive digression is out of the way, what is a religion then? I think the problem is highlighted here in my own and Smith's definitions of religion. For Smith, Confucianism can count as a religion because it gives people a sense of order, of organization, and (in a way) of meaning. However, I do not feel that it meets that last point (meaning) to a degree enough to allow it to be called religion. Nevertheless, people are certainly capable of living by Confucianism without anything else. For much of humanity, I don't feel that it is necessary that we have religion per se, but have some sense of structure or social order, something that need not have the transcendental import of religion. American demonstrates the point. Say what you want about the materialism of Americans and the soulless husks left behind by it, it's a way of life. And then of course there's people like myself, who don't feel it necessary to live with broad answers of meaning.
So that, along with the somewhat romantic description throughout the book (which I suppose can be forgiven since, as Smith himself says, the book is made for a common and not an academic setting) are my issues. Other than that, a good intro of major ideas of religions (I particularly like the description of the other Eastern religions, as Smith does not default to a Western rationalist view like so many others would). Coming up next: The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus.
A decidedly apologetic look at Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism (though I wish the Taoist section had been of a comparable length as the other sections), Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and a description of "primal" (tribal) religions.
The author claims that he will look at the positive side of religion, and he certainly fulfills that promise. Every religion is defended as an authentic and valuable outlook on life, with Smith taking neither a relativist (as he projects the important "truths" each religion provides) nor an absolutist (as Smith himself says, he will not choose one as being "better" or "more developed") position. Near the end it almost struck me as something of a romantic view (nearing the final sections on Christianity and the primal religions, though I found the early sections on Eastern religions less so). Ultimately Smith seems to conclude that religion, however it is practiced, is at least important, perhaps necessary for a sense of human meaning.
I'm not so sure. How much, after all, does one need religion? Well, certainly not everyone needs religion, as there exist agnostics (I am one) who have no faith. But Smith seems to suggest in the way of response that ideas like humanism, atheism, and rationalism are themselves "faiths."
But what is a faith? More specifically, what makes a religion? This question is of paramount importance if we are to determine how "necessary" religion is, and it is here that Smith's answer bothers me. If you are like me, you may have wondered why exactly Confucianism was included in a book on religion. Indeed, Smith considers it one. I disagree. Confucianism seems to lack something (as regards a religion) when I think of it. So what, then, is a religion? Smith, in defending his assertion of Confucianism as a religion, says:
If religion is taken in its widest sense, as a way of life woven around a people's ultimate concerns, Confucianism clearly qualifies. Even if religion is taken in a narrower sense, as a concern to align humanity with the transcendental ground of its existence, Confucianism is still a religion, albeit a muted one.
Smith continues by describing Confucianism as changing the old Chinese religious emphasis from the Heaven to the Earth in regards to who has priority for us. I would call that practical instead of religious. Confucius valued tradition and concerns about heaven were important to him, as Smith says, but that does not make a religion. As for Smith's definitions of religion, the wide one can simply be exchanged with "culture" from my view with no real loss, and the narrower view, though much closer, seems to be missing something as regards Confucianism. It mentions a "transcendental ground of existence," which I agree is important. But Confucianism does nothing to describe that ground. Instead it simply looks to social order and concrete human action. A religion, in my view, has to have some sort of handle on what is considered "truth." Religions provide answers not simply to what a problem is and how we can fix it, but they purport to describe something about reality. While Smith's narrower definition does seem to at least indirectly state this (after all, having a transcendental ground to align one's self with requires that the transcendental be known), I don't think Confucianism does anything to identify that something. It is a social system for sure, and is very much a cultural viewpoint, but to call it a religion seems to be a stretch to me.
Now that that massive digression is out of the way, what is a religion then? I think the problem is highlighted here in my own and Smith's definitions of religion. For Smith, Confucianism can count as a religion because it gives people a sense of order, of organization, and (in a way) of meaning. However, I do not feel that it meets that last point (meaning) to a degree enough to allow it to be called religion. Nevertheless, people are certainly capable of living by Confucianism without anything else. For much of humanity, I don't feel that it is necessary that we have religion per se, but have some sense of structure or social order, something that need not have the transcendental import of religion. American demonstrates the point. Say what you want about the materialism of Americans and the soulless husks left behind by it, it's a way of life. And then of course there's people like myself, who don't feel it necessary to live with broad answers of meaning.
So that, along with the somewhat romantic description throughout the book (which I suppose can be forgiven since, as Smith himself says, the book is made for a common and not an academic setting) are my issues. Other than that, a good intro of major ideas of religions (I particularly like the description of the other Eastern religions, as Smith does not default to a Western rationalist view like so many others would). Coming up next: The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus.
posted by Derek at 2:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home