On thinking of religion as philosophy

By Susantha Hewa

Religion is as old as the human race. It is no static entity although we have been made to feel that it is. This may be because we are not different from any of the other mortals, who are persuaded that their religion is different from all the others in that it contains the ‘ultimate truth.’ After all, it is this strong conviction that makes religion different from every other area of human experience.

Religion is not a monolithic structure. It combines several facets that are subject to change. In his book, The Religious Experience of Mankind, Prof. Ninian Smart discusses six dimensions of religion: 1. Ritual dimension 2. Mythological dimension 3. Doctrinal dimension 4. Ethical dimension 5. Social dimension and 6. Experiential dimension. Actually, all these aspects are dynamics that help the perpetuation of any religion and they seem to have some degree of independence from one another in their paths of change. For example, doctrinal dimension may be the most resistant to change, while social dimension may be more susceptible to variation. What each person experiences as ‘religion’ at any point in life is contributed to in varying degrees by all these six elements, if not more.

It seems quite probable that the quality of a person’s relationship with his religion is determined by how he relates to each of the above six aspects. Obviously, almost all children are more influenced by ritual and mythological dimensions than by doctrinal or ethical dimensions because their first experiences with religion come in the form of rituals and narratives, they being cognitively unready for the intricacies of doctrine and ethics. However, there is no wonder if many of them are more influenced by the ritual dimension while being subliminally fed on the second, the mythological dimension. Later, as youth, most of them would take an interest in the doctrine and ethics-the philosophical aspect. However, in their sunset years, most would relish engaging in rituals and enter the experiential realm, with other aspects influencing them in varying degrees, depending on their faith and personal, social and circumstantial factors.

If religion is to be a boon and not a bane, it would be better for us, living as we are in a multi-religious society, to be more sensible about religion. The more the people are interested in their religion’s doctrinal dimension, the more they tend to be more sober and ‘philosophical’ about it. Incidentally, it is a fact that many people, some Buddhists among them, like to think of their religion more as philosophy than ‘religion’. However, most of them seem to forget that such a view results from focusing too much on the doctrinal and ethical aspects, forgetting the crucial role played by the other four dimensions: the ritual, mythological, social and the experiential in making any religion, an organised and functional ‘religion’. In other words, what makes your religion a ‘religion’ or ‘philosophy’ is subjective; it is determined by what you make of it. If you are objective and dispassionate about it, nobody would quarrel with you for calling it a ‘philosophy’.

However, it is altogether a different story if you, like other devotees, get involved in the routine and culturally transmitted habits and practices of your religion. Merely saying that yours is not a religion but a philosophy, you are not going to convince or impress anybody, if you follow the crowd yourself. No religion exists in a social vacuum. It is people’s perceptions and ‘religious’ behaviour that defines and situates it.

You may begin to entertain doubts about many things you have trusted all your life but not religion. Our ancestors were no different. However, thousands of ancient religions that were once held in awe and reverence by millions of ancient people in different eras have fallen off the radar, giving place to the present-day religions. There isn’t an iota of evidence that our remote ancestors were any less believing than us. After all, they were much closer to and more dependent on their religions than us living in the 21^st century. As anthropologists say, religion was closely woven with every aspect of their life. For them, it was a matter of life and death.

As such, the degree of people’s faith in religion in a given historical context is no guarantee of its perpetuity. Not many of us- excluding, perhaps, those who are taking Anti-Aging supplements, would be there to quarrel with our posterity for favouring their newfangled religions! And, what justification is there in being offended with future tenants of Earth for following our own example of discarding archaic religions? Wouldn’t our primitive kith and kin curse us if they happened to materialise here to find us devoted to our present-day faiths? Surely, none of us would think of laughing at primitive people for thinking that they knew best.

Surely, we cannot be faulted for thinking that our religion is superior to the rest. We feel it equally strongly when we compare it either with primeval religions or contemporary religions. The only difference is that when it comes to primal religions, we can afford to be uninhibited and up-front in defending the superiority of ours. However, when the comparison happens to be between ours and other contemporary religions, we tend to be rather discreet and tactful. You know why.

Robert Frost says, “A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman’s birthday but never remembers her age.” The diplomacy with which we circumvent the awkward subject of religion whenever we find ourselves in ‘mixed company’ is not any less impressive than that of a diplomat’s studied absentmindedness of a woman’s age, which Frost found amusingly clever.

A glance at the tacit social ‘covenants’ we mutually respect would reveal that “diplomacy” is the name of the game in manipulating a tricky ‘religious’ bend. Here we go:

1. It is wise to avoid “religion” in polite conversation.

2. You are justified in being offended at the slightest coldness, let alone disrespect, shown to your religion.

3. You make it a point to say that all religions are equally good when you are in culturally diverse company.

4. You are damn sure that your religion is the one and only true religion (Come, come! No one is asking you to say so to your next-door heretic.)

5. You make sure you are out of earshot of someone about whose religion you want to be a little dismissive!

If you truly considered religion a philosophy, you wouldn’t have to be so ‘clever’, would you?