Introduction.

It is sometimes said that nothing in life is certain, except death and taxes. Though this assertion is given here in English and reflects the English based "realities" of Western Civilization, it seems likely that all cultures have a similar expression. The contemplation of life's certainties is often driven by dissatisfaction and frustration with one's daily life. It is often observed that one has several choices when confronted by such things: one can complain and thus justify one's discontent; one can move to take action, either in confrontation or avoidance; and one can simply accept them as a given and get on with one's life.

The choice perhaps depends on the nature of the perceived problem or problems, and it is a hallmark of humanity that there are as many different responses as there are people who respond. There are, however, some matters that emerge as fundamental, such that they appear continuously and in a variety of different guises. In the first saying about death and taxes, the two allusions are arguably to religion and politics.

Of these, politics is demonstrably a result of human interaction, but religion appears to be a separate and objective phenomenon, somehow part of the human environment and evidently a function of human existence. It has no demonstrable analog in our experiences, and stands alone and unique. It is said that humanity has never been without religion, and history appears to bear that out.

Yet it continues to confound us; there appear to be as many definitions and perceptions of religion as there are perceivers and definers. It would seem that no two people have identical "takes" on religion, though there exists evidence of some common agreements. It is said of religion (or if not, it should be said), and I probably paraphrase: "It is a conundrum wrapped in a mystery and placed in an enigma".

But there is one notion that virtually all agree upon, and that is that it is arguably the most potent vector in human history. Yet in modern times, it is also arguably one of the least well understood, and thus it charts the course of human history with seeming impunity. Entire cultures arise on its basis, wars are fought under its banner, and for very many, perhaps most, people, it defines and constrains the total life experience.

Attempts to gain insight into, some understanding of, religion are traditionally embraced by a morass of emotionally founded opinions and vast libraries of circular reasoning and analysis, all underlain by unassailable assumptions. These assumptions are not invisible, and indeed are falsifiable, but they are protected by increasingly inaccessible layers of scholarly and academic interpretation and commentary. Thus is religion girded about with impregnability.

Yet religion is curiously vulnerable to a clear-headed exploration that is willing to place the inviolable assumptions themselves into the heap of lore that describes religion itself. The first step in doing so is the identification of these assumptions. Doing so will strip away the entire defensive shell that surrounds religion.

The first assumption is that there are no assumptions. The whole of the substance of religion exists as an assertion of "truth", and this "truth" is only virtually testable. This latter phrase deserves explanation: Said "truth" is held to be "testable" only by carefully defined methodology. The reality, howver, is quite evident: it is in fact entirely untestable by any reasonable means. In both essence and substance, this "truth" is what is otherwise known as Revealed Wisdom, completely beyond the reach of mankind. Like a castle in the air, held in place by invisible support, religion continues to exist with apparent clarity and objectivity, but only to the extent it generates agreement in the eyes of its observers.

The second assumption is that there is no rational and objective reach to, much less connection with, the realm of religion. There is no base of knowledge that also addresses the matter of religion, its foundations, substances and essences. Thus it is proposed by religion that it alone is the source of the realities it portrays. It is not possible to discern and pose valid questions of the canonical substance of religion.

The third assumption is that religion addresses matters and issues not otherwise accessible to mankind, either individually or collectively. The choice it presents is simple: accept the authority of religion or do without. These matters and issues are declared to be inescapably fundamental to mankind, and so ultimately unavoidable by every individual. The essence of these comprises the proposed non-physical aspects and attributes of the human being, such that inform his or her life, and determine his or her ultimate disposition after physical death.

With these assumptions in hand, we can regard them as proposed axioms, to be accepted or rejected, or conditionally placed for purposes of investigation. Here, we will simply note them in passing and ignore them for the time being, though we will have to return to them in due course. And so, we can begin our exploration as we would any other subject: we can turn to the appropriate authorities to get a sense of a dispassionate view of the subject.

We begin by consulting the acknowledged lexical authority of the English language to determine the definition of the word "religion". That would be the Oxford English Dictionary. There, we find the following:

religion: f. Lat; obligation, bond, scruple, reverence, etc, f,
religare (see religate).
religate RE+LIGATE: 1) Surg. To tie up, stop bleeding.
2) Bind together, unite, constrain.
1) A state of being bound by religious vows, etc.
2) A particular monastic order, etc.
3) Belief in or sensing of some superhuman controlling power or
powers, entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, or in a
system defining a code of living, esp. as a means to achieve
spiritual or material improvement; acceptance of such belief
(eps. as represented by an organized Church) as a standard of
spiritual and practical life; the expression of this in worship,
etc.
4) A particular system of such belief.
5) Devotion, fidelity, etc.
6) The sanction or obligation of an oath, etc.

It is the third definition that is of interest, as it sets out the necessary attributes of religion. From that definition, the following items are of interest:

1) "superhuman controlling power or powers". These are
commonly understood to be deities, divine beings, and in
English, are called (the) God(s). So, we can use the now
virtually universal term to identify this attribute: thus, God.

2) The actor, the sensor or believer, mankind. Here, we can
consider both mankind, and the human individual.

3) The adjective of reality particular to religion: spiritual;
or objectively, spirit.

To simplify, then, the three fundamental aspects of religion, as defined by the OED, are God, man, and spirit.

For the moment, we can accept these three as distinct matters to investigate. God is a unique fundamental of religion, found nowhere else in our culture, society and tradition. Thus it must be sought within the essence of religion itself. Man/mankind is obviously a matter of profound interest to us, one way or another, and can be expected to be a primary consideration of every known aspect of our lives. Spirit is a subject that is proposed as an aspect of our environment, and ourselves as part of that environment. It is thus a proper subject for scientific investigation.

But there are consequences of accepting this definition. Religion is here defined as being a function of the existence of a deity or deities. These deities are entitled to various forms of human obescience. This requires that we look more closely at what we consider as religion.

We generally assign the term to the cultural practices of any society that involves matters of the spirit. According to this definition, some of those so considered are in fact not religions at all, for they lack the divine ingredient. Amongst these are Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, all regarded as Eastern religions. Hinduism, however, qualifies.

We also assign the term to what we regard as primitive cultural practices, but we must look more closely. Often, the divinities are simply regarded as spirits, and we must ask if these qualify as deities as well. I would suggest that we can look at how these spirits are described. Do they have individual qualities independent of their function? Are they thus discrete entities? Or are they regarded as the essences of what they are seen to govern? If the latter, such a practice would seem to fall outside the definition of religion.

Further, we sometimes assign the term to institutions that celebrate founding individuals known and attested to be human and without intrinsic divine essence. These do not qualify as religions either.

This leaves the field of candidates sharply reduced, and in general, it would seem that only those that have roots in ancient near east actually qualify. It is said that Hinduism is a branch of those ancient roots, though at what level is uncertain. There are other traditions that also bear the earmarks of the same source, and amongst these are those found in Central and South America.

And so it is that we can select from that source a lineage of tradition:
the one that supports the current dominant world religions. It is called the Hebrew religious stream and comprises Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These three traditions are the survivors of the ancient near-east acknowledgment and worship of a class of named deities.

It's also arguable that the OED definition was written specifically with the Hebrew stream in mind. In that regard, then, we can contemplate the appropriateness of using that definition. Whatever else might be said, however, the definition fits the reality that confronts us, and it does so like a glove fits the hand for which it was made.

And so we here define religion, for our purposes, as the Hebrew religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Accordingly, we can proceed to focus on the three attributes of religion drawn from the OED definition.