I’ve complained that philosophers, in discussing religion, tend to leap into arguments for the existence of God. The place to start is with a discussion of what religion is. Kwame Anthony Appiah has done that.
His excellent article is at Aeon. I highly recommend it. Here are his main points:
• “Religion” is a category, not a single natural thing. (Philosophers speak of kinds. When we speak of a tree we are referring to a natural kind. When we speak of a marriage we are speaking of a social kind. But note that the tree is more concrete than the marriage, which means different things in different cultures and is, in our time, evolving. The reference to the social kind of marriage still works, but not in quite the same way as a reference to a natural kind.)
• To get to the modern category of “religion,” you need a category of “secular,” that is, a non-religious sphere. That didn’t emerge in the West until the 17th century. Earlier understandings of the category “religion” aren’t the concept that we use today.
• The notion that the things that people take to be religious — rituals, practices, rites, superstitions, beliefs, etc. — can be lumped into a category that describes them all is like trying to put football, golf, poker, chess and solitaire into the category of “games.” Wittgenstein said that when you look for a common feature, there is none. Instead, there are vague family resemblances. (Chess is kind of like Monopoly in that it’s played on a board. But how is solitaire like tennis?) Appiah points out that the resemblances you notice depend on what you choose as a prototype. Start with Christianity as the prototype and you find one set of resemblances. Start with animism as the prototype and you find another.
Appiah has two conclusions. First:
If ‘religion’ endures, it’s because the word still does work, practical and theoretical. It orders law and policy, directs research, and shapes the inner lives of those who use it.
Although I complain about it, the word does some work for me. I am not a pacifist, but I think the republic should respect the rights of conscientious objectors. I think its record in dealing with religious objections to war has been shameful. In arguing that, I use “religion” to order my notions of law and policy. And, as you might guess, I use “religion” to direct my own humble research.
The other conclusion:
Whatever else it may be, ‘religion’ remains a category with too many stakeholders to be fired by fiat. When it comes to what the word means, no one gets to say, and everyone gets a say.
I suppose I like the essay because I agree — and I want my say, although what seems like religion to me doesn’t fit the category as portrayed in the dictionary. I don’t think that the term “private religion” is an oxymoron. I also don’t think that beliefs are a helpful way to look at religion.
But setting aside my own biases, I think Appiah’s article is important. If you are the kind of person who was exposed to something called religion as a child or who has thought about religion’s influence on American politics, it’s a topic that’s worth trying to think through, rather than avoiding. Appiah’s article is a good place to start.
• Source: Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Undefinable yet indispensable”; Aeon, 12 Dec. 2025. It’s here:
No comments:
Post a Comment