Religion

History of Buddism

Buddhism was founded in the sixth century BCE based on the life and teachings of Siddhartha Gautama. The title ‘Buddha’ was given to Gautama after his achieving of enlightenment. The title ‘Buddha’ means the ‘enlightened one’ or the ‘awakened one’. As Wulf Metz observes, there is “hardly any doubt that the ‘historical’ Buddha, founder of Buddhism actually lived.” (p.222). However, one should be cautious in reconstructing his life because it is interwoven with legendary details to portray an idealised picture like any other religious leader. His religious teachings as Rahula attests offer “a realistic view of the life and of the world.”(p.17). The concern of this essay is to critically assess the claim that “Salvation in Buddhism suggest a most urgent task to lead man out of suffering and illness.” In this endeavour it would critically analyse what does salvation in Buddhism mean, whether it seeks to free human beings from suffering and illness or freedom from suffering and illness are only a by-product of salvation attained through some other means.

Bible

Bible besides being the sacred scripture for a mass of almost two billion people (33.7% of world’s population) it is also serving as a source of curiosity for both Christians and non-Christians. Its contents besides leading many to conversion is also setting many others into research.  It is not fortuitous that it has become one of the most appreciated book. It has been put to flame test by every era and it had withstood all the attacks.
Bible is often referred to as library. It is through a process of evolution we can say, that Bible has reached its present form. This complex collection has seen several centuries during its evolution and various authors of different interests, who lived centuries ago, in a setup very different from ours. These authors served as instruments in the hands of God in writing this complex collection. Therefore Bible certainly contains both Divine and Human elements which only adds to its richness.
When one tries to understand the wisdom and explore the richness of Bible, one should bear in mind also the fact that, as Peter Ellis says, ‘it is the only book God thought important enough to seal with the charism of inspiration’1
As we have already said that there is human element present in the authorship of Bible one may find in the course of reading, contradictions and repetitions of narratives etc., it does not mean that this Divinely inspired book looses its value. It only means that, for Bible to be meaningful to us today it requires a systematic and a scientific approach or study. It requires a critical analysis as John Hayes says,
‘In order to understand the Bible it is necessary to develop an approach that recognizes and attempts to deal realistically with both the difficulties, inherent in Biblical study and the nature of Biblical material’
Therefore we have various ways of approaching Bible. All of them try to interpret it so as to bring out the hidden meaning that will be meaningful for us today.

Bahai Faith

Bahai religion is one of the latest religions in the history of religion. It is primarily Islamic but one can identify the religious truths from non-Islamic, religions incorporated into its stream. It aims at one Universal faith that will unite the whole human kind into one race and hence to evolve world peace where every one will accept and love everyone. But in its early stages those who belonged to Bahai faith were considered as Muslim heretics. This is a radical modern movement emerging from Shi’a Islam.

BEGINNINGS OF BAHAI RELIGION:

This religion evolved from the teachings of two religious visionaries of the 19th century in Persia.
1. Mirza Ali Muhammed (1820-50): He claimed that he was the latest spiritual leader and called himself ‘Bab’, which meant ‘The Gate’. He was executed by the persian authorities under the accusations of an attempt to assasinate the Shah. He did not attract many followers.

2. Mirza Husain Ali: He was born inTehron, Iran in 1817. He was a follower of Bab. He called himself ‘Baha U Allah’, which meant ’splendor of God or Glory of God.’ He claimed prophetic status and said that he was the manifestation of God fortold by Bab.His duty is to redeem the world at the end of the age and to interpret God’s will for a new era. Bahai traditions say that Baha U Allah did not undergo any formal education. He was imprisioned by the king because of his claims. He claimed to have had a dramatic religious experience during his stay in the prison. He was exiled to Bagdad along with the other Babis. He gradually imposed spiritual influence on the Babi exiles whose number increased. In 1863 he declared himself to a small group of followers as manyuzhiruhu’allah, which means ‘he whom God shall manifest’.
He was imprisioned and exiled many more times and between 1868 and 1877 he was kept in house arrest with his family. He started writing the fundamental Bahai scripture between 1871-1873 called Kitab-i-Aqdas (the most holy book). He died on 1892. His followers increased after his death.The movement is represented in over 70,000 centers all over the world. especially in South-West Asia, Europe, Africa, North and South America and South East Asia.

BASIC TEACHINGS OF BAHAI FAITH:

Bahai teaching accepts all religions. It is based on the philosophy that the history of mankind goes in cycles. One such cycle began 6000 years ago with Adam as the first prophet. According to Bahai teaching Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Zarathustra, Christ and Muhammed are all successos of Adam whom God used in different epochs. Thus all their teachings contain truth which Baha U Allah accomodates in his movement. He is the manifestation of God in the present age. Therefore the ultimate aim is to unite human race into one single faith and to establish peace in the world. This could be achieved only by maintaining one single language which will be auxillary language – English, a single currency and uniform judicial and police system.

The mandate of Baha U Allah as God’s Messiah and fulfillment of promises of all religions for the present age was to teach the true religion of God and to fill the world with peace and justice and to save it from the immoral values of modern civilization. According to its teachings the state of perfect peace and harmony will be achieved after an internal change that will take place in people and the society.

As Baha U Allah is a manifestation of God all his writings are sacred. this can be interpretted only by his son Abdul-Baha whom Baha U Allah nominated as an authorized interpreter. Abdul-Baha at his death nominated his grandson Shoghi Effendi to be his successor.
Bahai teaching addresses existential problems faced by an individual and it is open to science. It promotes: equality of all human beings, non-violence, abstention from alcohol, daily private prayers, fasting meditation, prayer for the dead, removal of prejudice and rejection of military service. It is open to Scriptures of other religions, advocates monogamy, but divorce is allowed. Social and religious issues went hand in hand in the teachings which aimed at new age peace.Though Bahai faith had its roots in Islam Baha U Allah rejected polygamy, slavery and the concept of holy war (Jihad). He promoted equality between sexes.

Teachings of Quran was modified and explained in a metaphorical sense. This religion did not believe in angels or evil spirits. Heaven and hell were only treated in symbolic sense. It tried to reconcile science and religion this attracted the educated.

The teachings of Bahai religion sounds very attractive and its principles aims high ideals of peace, unity, equality, justice and the like. but it is more a political system under the covering of religion. How could one prove that it is not another ‘Ideal-World’ dream of another ambitious leader like Alexander the Great, who tried to bring the world under a single rule and language (Greek). Alexander used power and warfare as his tool, unlike the recent Baha U Allah who had used an another dreadful monster ‘Religion’ to achieve his goal. This was presented in a way which is more acceptable by the society.
The syncretic approach of Bahaism is very noble.It promotes tolerance towards other religions. This theology sounds expansive and deep on the superficial level. But when it is scrutinized closely, it would only lead to confusion and not to the Truth.To give a simple example, the teaching says that Buddha and Muhammed are manifestations of God indifferent epochs in different forms. If it is so then one would wonder what is this God who manifests himself in different forms trying to convey. Should one accept the gentle spirituality of Buddha through abstinence from all forms of evil and non violence or the brutality of holy war and indulgence through polygamy and all such practices? The teachings of Bahai rejects holywar but it was promoted by Muhammed whom the Bahai traditions considers as one of the manifestation of God. where is the Ultimate Truth that everyone is striving to achieve?

It is all confused and bungled up within itself. This cannot lead one to the Ultimate Truth. But it would do better if it gets out of the covering of ‘Religion’ and expose itself as a political policy, what it really is. Besides the above reasons the claims of the Baha U Allah that he is the fulfillment of the promises in all religions is highly questionable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
KRITZEK,J..,”BAHAISM” in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.2, NEWYORK: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1967.
NINIAN SMART, The Religious Experience Of Mankind, NEWYORK: 1967.
NINIAN SMART, The World’s Religions, GREAT BRITAIN: Cambridge university Press,1989.
SCHILLING,W., “UNITY AND PEACE” in The World’s Religions, AUSTRALIA: A Lion HandBook,1982.
RAUSH,D.A., World Religions – A Simple Guide, LONDON: SCM Press LTD., 1982.

Atheism

INTRODUCTION
If theism has problems with regard to defining God, his qualities and nature, atheism which is often considered the opposite of theism, has problems with regard to the definition of the term ‘atheism’ itself. Attempts made to define atheism have only added fuel to the fire.  Scholars have come up with number of  types or forms or branches of atheism.  Second haunting problem is ‘how convincing is this age old philosophy called atheism?’ Are there philosophically convincing arguments to support atheism.  This essay would address the above two issues, it would a) try to provide an appropriate definition of atheism and b)try to answer the question ‘How convincing is atheism?’.

DEFINITION OF ATHEISM
Etymological Definition: The term atheism is of Greek origin.  It is a combination of ‘theos’ which means God and ‘a’, a privative or a negative. Therefore etymologically atheism means ‘no God’ or refers to the school or schools of philosophy which denies the existence of God.   An atheist is the one who denies the existence of God.

The above definition of atheism is too simplistic and does not provide an adequate understanding of atheism and various shades and branches of atheism.  According to Fichte, true atheist decides his or her course of action after calculating the consequences of an action and not by listening to the voice of conscience.   According to Paul Tillich atheism can be depicted as a life that has no depth, that is shallow.    The above two definitions are only expressions of what one thinks about atheism and are not definitions of  atheism per se.

To derive at an appropriate definition then a deeper analysis is demanded.  Theists, adherents of either Judaism or Christianity or Islam or Hinduism have a system of beliefs which include God is the creator of the universe, God is all powerful and controller of all that is happening, everything that exists depend on God for its existence and so on.  Atheism rejects such a belief system and existence of spiritual beings.  Since all the above beliefs are upheld by religion, atheism rejects religion too.  One can therefore say atheism is rejection of God or gods or spiritual beings and all religious beliefs.

This understanding or definition of atheism too is criticised by philosophers and scholars.  According to the critics the above understanding that atheism is denial of God or gods or religious beliefs and that it is opposite of theism is an inadequate understanding or inadequate definition. Because one can be a ‘practical atheist’ whose life or way of living denies God, that is he or she lives in such a way that as if there is no God.  Such an atheist may not deny the existence of God or question the existence of God but does not show it in one’s life that God exists.

Another aspect to be noted is that this absence of belief in God or gods is not due to simple ignorance of religious teachings but it is through deliberate choice and from an inherent inability to agree with religious belief system because it is incoherent and highly incredible. In this case then one cannot call people who have never been exposed or heard of the concept of God as atheists such an appropriation is a misnomer.

Scholars identify various other types of atheistic trends while defining atheism which can be discussed as follows.
Methodological Atheism:  This is the kind of atheism taken up by natural and social sciences. These disciplines do not take into consideration religious belief systems to account for the phenomena they investigate, because in such instances God is outside the area of their investigation and has no place for such beliefs. Religious belief system is practically useless in these instances. This is called methodological atheism.

Reductionistic Atheism: This form of atheism claims that the genesis of religion is to be found in human society, human nature and human desire.  This implies that there is no need for the ‘supernatural’ to explain religion. God is just a projection of human nature on to an ideal called God, a supernatural power.  This idea was propagated by L. Feurbach, Karl Marx and Freud.

Evidential Atheism:  This philosophical school states tat God’s existence can be denied because there are good reasons for not to believe in God.  According to this school, atheism has convincing reasons which can be discussed as follows.

“IS ATHEISM CONVINCING?”
a)     There is no reason to believe that world is a created entity and that it cannot just be and hence needs a creator.  If one has to follow the theory of causation and answer the question, ‘who made the world?’ with the answer, ‘God’ then one should also be able to answer the question, ‘Who made God?’ too.  But this is not the case. The theist answers, ‘no one’. For a theist ‘God just is’ and does not need a creating force, for an atheist, ‘world just is’ and it does not need a creator.  There is no forcing reason to prefer one view over the other and say the world must have a creator because nothing uncreated can come into being while at the same breath saying God does not need a creator.  For an atheist it is more convincing to believe in an uncreated world than in an uncreated God.
b)     Secondly the atheists argue from the view point of eternity of matter or in terms of physics, the theory of eternity of mass-energy. According to this theory if the universe has been created by a Supreme Being then at a time prior to creation the quantity of the matter must have been less than now or even zero. But it is contrary to the findings of Physics which proves that the quantity of matter has always been the same.   This implies that the universe has always been there and hence not been created.
c)     Thirdly for an atheist all events have an explanation without reference to the supernatural. There is no room for ‘miracle’ in the mind of an atheist which demands the intervention of God or a supernatural influence on the event which is considered to be a miracle.  Science does not accept miracle as an explanation.  This argument is based on the methodological atheism discussed earlier. Therefore there is no need for a concept called ‘God’ to explain things, which then rules out the need for the existence of God. Everything can be explained in terms of the observable world with out any reference to the supernatural.
d)     The fourth argument is based on the presence of imperfections and evil in this world. The presence of imperfections and evil in this world is incoherent with the idea of God presented by the theists.  The theists describe a God who is all powerful, all good, all perfect and all knowing.  But the world created by such a God does not reflect such an intelligent being. G.H. Lewes in reference to the trial and error method of process of evolution remarks, “nothing could be more unworthy of a Supreme intelligence than this inability to construct an organism at once, without making several tentative efforts, undoing today what was so carefully done yesterday and repeating for centuries the same tentatives and the same corrections in the same succession.   The world therefore does not reflect an omnipotent God. Also the evil in this world is a clear for the atheist for the non-existence of God. It does not make sense to believe that God created this world and he is all powerful and all loving while the world he created is full of pointless evil and suffering.
e)     Finally the atheists argue that the theists who believe in God have failed to provide any convincing proof for the existence of God. The atheist justifies his or her unbelief in God pointing out that there is no evidence that would warrant the existence of God or existence of such a reality.  According to them it is not the duty of the atheist to provide proofs for the non-existence of God rather the burden is on the believer to prove the existence of God. This is called ‘Burden of Proof’ argument.  For an atheist all that matters and all that he or she relies on is empirical facts and empirical methods to arrive at those facts.  But the theist claims that there is some thing more to these empirical facts, there are supernatural or spiritual or transcendental facts.  The atheist demands if there are such facts as supernatural facts then it has not been shown, it has not been proved, then let the theist better prove it. It is the duty of the believer who claims the existence of facts to prove the same and it is not the problem of the atheist to show such facts do not exist.
All the above arguments show that atheism is convincing on the basis of available evidence from the observable world which provides no good reason to believe in God.

There are serious objections raised against the conclusion that atheism is convincing.  The critics argue that atheism is unacceptable and is not convincing because atheism does not provide any answer to the ‘Ultimate Question’ concerning the origin of the universe.  The closest one can get to the truth is as far as agnosticism which does not deny or approve of the existence of God but says nothing can be known about such a super natural reality. The atheist faces the same problem as that of the theist who has no answer for the question, ‘Who made God?’. He does not provide an explanation for the origin of the which is still left in the dark by the atheist.  However it should be noted to the advantage of the atheist that it is possible to arrive at a conclusion that something is false or meaningless without knowing the true answer.  As for an atheist, he or she can well say, ‘I do not have an answer for the origin of the universe but all that I know is the theological theory which states that all powerful and all good God is the creator of this universe is not the correct answer given the fact there is so much of pointless suffering and evil in this world.

The above problem is tackled through the ‘free will defence’.  The free will defence theory insists as put by Aquinas, “that nothing which involves contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.”  This implies that even God cannot do the logically impossible.  Secondly the free will defence insists that freedom to choose between right and wrong, good and bad is logically essential precondition for the existence of virtues and high values.  Without freedom of choice there is no virtue. Thirdly it states that God has given human beings the faculty of free will, freedom of choice. The free will defence goes on to say that it is possible for an omnipotent and omniscient, all-good God and the evil to exist at the same time. Because it is not contrary to God’s nature, for God has given human beings the gift of free will.  All the evil that exist are the consequences of all wrong choices made by people and God can control this only by taking back the gift of free will he had given. Omnipotent God and evil are not mutually exclusive because of the freedom of choice, but what is mutually exclusive is freedom of choice and virtue. In light of this argument the theists say that it is better to have virtues which makes human life worth living than a life without free choice and evil. But the free will defence theory does not account for the pointless suffering resulting through natural calamities.

Another criticism against atheism is that atheism is not convincing or true because atheism can only be true if the atheist himself is omniscient and knew everything.  It is impossible for the atheist to prove his case.  To prove the non-existence of God he should examine every part of the universe and all ages in time to show that there is no place where or no time when one can find the trace of God.  To do this one must be omnipresent. Against this criticism as discussed earlier the atheists argue that the burden of proof is on the believer and not on the non-believer.

Moreover matters of God and religion are matters of heart and feelings and emotions.  In spite all the philosophical and logical reasons one may find to show that there is no God and it is not reasonable to claim the existence of a benevolent God, as ages past have proved human mind would still find it more convincing to believe in God rather on the fetes intellectual gymnastics.

CONCLUSION
This essay tried to provide a feasible definition of atheism. With regard to the question ‘is atheism convincing?’ it analysed the arguments and counter arguments of atheism. Though we cannot reach an all conclusive answer it must however be acknowledged that religion and God as matters of heart does not go by philosophical reasoning alone.  An atheist makes his way forward with philosophical reasoning alone.  In that sense religion or theists are at an advantageous position to whom even if all logical reasons are shown would choose the contrary. As proved by ages past and the majority of the millions it is God’s existence and religion and religion that are more convincing than atheism even in the midst of whirlwind of doubts, as Augustine aptly puts it, ‘our hearts will not rest until it rests in Thee’.

Bibliography

EDWARDS, P., “ATHEISM” in The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Vol. 1, NEW YORK: The Macmillan Company, 1967.

FERM, V., “ATHEISM” in the Dictionary of Philosophy, NEW YORK: Philosophical Library, 1960.

FLEW, A., The Presumption of Atheism and Other Essays, LONDON: Elek/Pemberton, 1976.

NIELSEN, K.E., “SYSTEM OF RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL BELIEF” in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 26., CHICAGO: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1992.

REID, J.P., “ATHEISM” in The New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol.1. NEW YORK: McGraw Hill, 1967.

TILLEY, T.W., “ATHEISM” in The New Dictionary of Theology, DUBLIN: Gill & Macmillan, 1992.

African Traditional Religion

Among the Africans there is a general belief that after the death of a person his or her spirit enters into the world of spirits in which it lives still closely bound to the earth. This belief prevails in almost all African traditional religions. These spirits hover around their villages, house tops, forests, hills, trees pools and in the depths of the earth. “In their spirit world they eat drink and take snuff, are in harmony with other groups of spirits and with their living relations.” The first half of this discussion will discuss about the term ‘ancestor’; its meaning and the second half will concentrate on how the term ‘Ancestor’ attained a new meaning with the advent of scholarship.

MEANING OF THE TERM ‘ANCESTORS’ AND THEIR ROLE:
The ancestors are the dead blood relatives who entered the world of spirits. “After death the deceased settle back at home in the community and from this time on are regarded as a friendly spirit guardian to the family that survives him”. These spirits which play a great role in a traditional African society are called ‘Ancestors’. The essential condition to enter the spirit world is that the person must be married and must have offspring who would remember him or her after death. These ancestors take a lively interest in their family affairs. They are considered to be watching and guarding their families. “If the family remember their dead they will be safe and happy and most important of all, their homes will be guarded against the entry of a witch.” The most important ancestor to a family is the deceased head of an effective extended family such as the father or grand father.

In Shona tradition ancestors use a human medium to communicate to the living family. The ancestors protect their families from disasters and disease, they are sought for help by the childless, during time of war for protection and victory, for success in a new endeavour one is entering, or for rain and wealth, for good crops, etc. They are also feared because all evils are attributed to the anger of the ancestors, evils like drought, famine, childlessness, death, illness, loss and so on. “In brief, ancestors are believed to be vested with power and authority. They are kinship-based and they fulfil a functional role in the world of the living, especially among their own kinsmen whom they maintain an ambivalent relationship which implies both positive and negative aspects.”

THE NEW MEANING
In the history of scholarship the idea of ancestors, like the pebble that is carried by the river which gets rounded, has attained a new perspective. Different eras and different people depending on one’s background and interest hold different views.

In the early stages of Christianisation and colonisation the aspect that attracted most attention was the religious aspect of the ancestor cult. In the 1930’s the locus shifted to social anthropological aspects. It was then considered that, ‘ancestor worship’ had its roots in kinship and descent relations. In 1960’s British anthropologist, Mayer Fortes argued that Ancestor worship is based on the principle of ‘Jural authority’. He said, “it is not the whole man but only his Jural status as the parent vested with authority and responsibility that is transmuted into ancesterhood.” This idea became a very widely accepted view.

Later in 1971 this view was criticised on the basis that in African understanding, there is no conceptual separation of the world of the living from the dead[Igor Kopytoff] There is no prominent difference between dead ancestors and living elders because both demand respect and obedience from the junior in other words a Gerontocratic system. Therefore terms like worship, cult, sacrifice should not be used in connection with ‘ancestors’.

Kopytoff’s view of conceptual continuity between living and dead elders was criticised by James L. Brian. He preferred to use the term ‘Cult’. Many other African scholars too rejected the term worship. But they described the ancestors as God’s representatives or intermediaries between God and the individual. Westerland contorts that this is due to the bias of African scholars by their religious background and political outlook. He says, “as a rule,…their studies on ‘African religion’ are implicitly theological and are tinged with nationalist inspiration, part of their aim being to restore the dignity of African religion.”

The theological approach of John Mbiti calls the idea of ancestors as ‘living dead’. By this what he means is that the ancestors are part of a social reality which includes both the living and the dead, “life and death are not two antithetical realities but one single reality in the shape of two phenomena.”
There are some others who combine both theological and anthropological approaches, one for instance is, Jean-Marc Ela. He says that ancestor cult is an essential dimension of family rather than being treated as individual religious phenomenon.

DISTORTION CAUSED BY RELIGIOUS APPROACH

It should be admitted and could be justified that the concept of ‘ancestors’ has been distorted and twisted and bent to the vim and fancies of the scholarship especially by those who tried to introduce their religion in particular Christianity. The Christian theologians were hunting for points of intersection between Christianity and African traditional Religion(s). They took the concept of ‘ancestors’ to an unimaginable extremes, even to say Jesus is the ‘Proto-Ancestor’[Bujo], in the name of African Theology.

Michael Gelfand says, “[T]he Mashona love and revere their dead and in time of need turn to their vadzimu in the same way as the Christian turns to God.”
Pope John Paul II in his homily at the opening of the 1994 African synod made the following statement:
“The Church of Rome salutes these[African] peoples, especially their religious traditions in which it expresses the ardent quest for the one God through veneration of their ancestors. These traditions are still the heritage of the majority of the inhabitants of Africa. They are traditions which are open to the gospel, open to the truth… They believe instinctively that the dead continue the live and remain in communion with them. Is this not in some way a preparation for belief in the communion of saints.”

Bujo in his book African Theology makes the following comment, “when Africans honour the ancestors they are at least implicitly honouring God.” He goes on to say since all life comes ultimately from God, the ancestors play a special role as the medium through which divine life is conveyed to the living. Another theologian Nyamati calls Jesus “the perfect ancestor more specifically, brother”

Many more examples could be cited to show how the term ancestor has attained a new meaning altogether in the history of scholarship. It could be seen that there is a compulsive tendency to associate the African concept of ancestral worship with the communion of saints or to Jesus or God and to baptise it to be a Christian concept. This tendency is due to an urgently felt need to reconcile the deep rooted practice which was earlier looked down. A Christian who faithfully attends the Sunday services in times of struggle and difficulty might revert to his ancestral veneration for help. In this situation the only less damaging solution the Christian theologians could think of was to christianise the concept and give theological explanations for it. The urgency overlooked the point that the African concept of ancestral veneration is different from that of the Christian concept of communion of saints. Anyone can enter the realm of spirit world provided one is married. But it is not so with the communion of saints one has to lead an upright and holy life. In Christian understanding the sinful person after death needs our prayer.

Another major difference can be identified from what Dr. Kuper says, “Swazi address them[the ancestral spirits] in much the same way as they speak to the living and the word tsetisa(to scold) is frequently used to describe the manner of approach.” They do not express their gratitude to their ancestors, but when they find that they are being troubled by the ancestor, they scold the ancestor using following words: “You, son of so and so why do you kill us your children? Why do you turn your back on us? Here is your beast. Take it look after us for we are looking after you. Why did you send illness on this child? You are greedy, you are always ready to find fault.” This approach is entirely different from the pious Christian approach towards its saints.

CONCLUSION
From the above discussion, evidently there is a wide gulf between the original understanding about the ancestors and the understanding brought about by scholarship. The hidden motive of scholarship tries to bring about a new meaning which will lead the indigenous African to Proto-ancestor, namely Jesus or God. The scholarship tries to bring in eschatological motives which are far from an African mind, because African Philosophy is essentially an existential philosophy.

In the case of original understanding the unity brought about by the ancestor is within the biological circle but this is missing in the concept of mystical and spiritual proto-ancestor. The scholarship on ‘ancestor’ has brought about only discontinuity and disintegration of the original understanding. In the name of inculturation scholarship has only exploited the culture by trying to attain its hidden motives. Today’s scholarship on the topic has tried to force the intermarriage between the two namely African traditional religion(s) and Christianity, which is uncalled for.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOURDILLON, M., The Shona Peoples, HARARE: Mambo Press, 1976.

BOURDILLON, M., Where Are The Ancestors, HARARE: University Of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare, 1993.

BUCHER, H., Spirits And Power, CAPE TOWN: University Press, 1980.

GELFAND, M., Witch Doctor, LONDON: Harvill Press, 1964.

HEALY, J., Towards An African Narrative Theology, NAIROBI: Paulines, 1997.

PARRATT, J., Reinventing Christianity, NEWJERSEY: Africa World Press Inc., 1995.

PARRINDER, G., African Traditional Religion, LONDON: SPCK, 1968.

What is religion?

Definition of Religion
If there is any field which has been commented by majority of the disciplines of study it would be ‘Religion’. Every discipline has contributed, some though not directly but atleast a passing comment had been made and some however more explicit in its dealings with regard to religion.
Because of its diverse nature and variations between different religions, it was identified by the authors like J.L.Cox, as an endless problem to arrive at an universal definition . In this essay we will address the problems involved in arriving at an universal definition of religion by gauging a definition of religion against the following five factors
1. Vagueness
2. Compartmentalization
3. Narrowness
4. Prejudice
5. Bias

THE PROBLEM IN DEFINING RELIGION:
The word religion is derived from the Latin noun ‘religio’. But so far no consensus has been achieved with regard to which of the following verbs has the closest connection,
‘relegere’ – which means to turn to constantly or to observe conscientiously
‘relegari’ – which means to bind oneself
‘reeligere’ – which means to choose again
Also it has been tried throughout many centuries to define religion by various disciplines like philosophy, anthropology, sociology, theology, psychology etc, each one of them co
For instance philosophy tried to trace the pure essence of religion, the relation between the so called Ultimate Reality to the Cosmos and human existence. While theology pointing to a transcendent power or mysterious, supernatural force. Psychology concentrates on feelings and emotions involved, where as sociology has the central criterion of ‘power’ or ‘force’ that which is superior to the whole community. Thus we can see each discipline having its own slant in explaining religion.

VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF RELIGION:
We will try to list few of the definitions given by various disciplines.
THEOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RELIGION: ‘Religion is a mystery, at once awesome and attractive.’ – Rudolph Otto
MORAL DEFINITION OF RELIGION: ‘Religion is a sum of scruples which impede the free use of our faculties.’ -Salomon Reinach, an early 20th century historian of religion.
PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITION OF RELIGION: ‘Religion is the relation of man to his own being, but as a being outside himself.’ -Ludwig Feuerbach, 19th century philosopher.
PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RELIGION: ‘Religion is the result of seeking comfort in a world which dispassionately considered, is a terrifying wilderness.’ -Bertrand Russell
SOCIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RELIGION: ‘Religion is the opium of the people’ -Karl Marx.

ANALYSIS OF E.B. TYLORS DEFINITION:
It is the American scholars Hall, Pilgrim and Cavanagh who listed four basic problems in defining religion. They are vagueness, compartmentalization, narrowness and prejudice. We will try and assess the famous definition of religion given by E.B. Tylor (1832-1917) an anthropologist against these problems along with another common problem of the biased nature of the definition of religion.

DEFINITION: ‘Religion is the belief in the Supernatural beings.’
The above definition of Tylor can be checked for its adequacy as follows.

1.VAGUENESS:
This fallacy of definition results due to the obscure nature of the definition, which fails to clearly address the subject matter of religion and to distinguish it from the other fields of study. The above definition of Tylor on the peripheral level need not be necessarily charged with the fallacy of vagueness. Because it confines religion within the frame work of belief in supernatural beings. Thus excluding all the other disciplines which does not consider matters regarding supernatural beings as its concern. But a careful deeper study of this definition would tempt us to charge it with the error of vagueness. This definition talks about the aspect of ‘belief”. The word ‘belief” is too vague. It has many forms. On the one hand these beliefs are widely shared and officially approved doctrines and dogmas. On the other hand they are held by certain groups or individuals and are not officially proposed for universal acceptance. Thus this defintion does not clearly indicate which of the above two types of belief it is referring to.

2. NARROWNESS:
The second problem that could be identified in defining religion would be narrowness of the definition. By narrowness of definition we mean that the definition ’s restriction towards the subject matter which would leave aside too much from the field of study.
Tylor reduces his focus to theistic religions. It does not cater for non theistic religions such as Budhism Confucianism, Jainism and Taoism. All these religions does not entertain any belief in God or gods. Hence tylor’s definition is inadequate with regard to non theistic religions.

3. COMPARTMENTALIZATION:
The third error that is commonly found among the definitions of religion is compartmentalization. Such definitions explain religion by considering one single aspect hence reducing religion to that aspect being considered. In doing so these definitions disregard the relevance of the totality of human existence.
Tylor’s definition , ‘religion is the belief in supernatural beings’ can be charged with the short coming of compartmentalization. Religion is a multidimensional entity. It is a mixture of attitudes, convictions, emotions, gestures, rituals,beliefs and and institutions through which one expresses his or her relationship with reality. therefore the above definition is highly compartmentalized, as it concentrates on only one aspect, the aspect of belief, leaving out all the other aspects listed above.

4. PREJUDICE:
In defining religion it should be borne in mind that the definition arrived at must give an objective picture of religion. When a definition fails in this aspect it is said to be prejudiced. Tylor’s definition as we have already stated caters only to the theistic religions. Hence does not give an objective view of what really religion is. It is prejudiced that religion must always be dealing with matters concerning supernatural beings.

5. BIAS:
By bias we mean that the definition of religion with an opinion or feeling or influence that strongly favours single side in its arguement. For example defining religion as the finest achievement and blissful and only hope in human life, whereas in reality religion often inflicts death and suffering through ‘holy wars’, religious sanctions like torture of witches, heretics and non belivers etc.
With respect to Tylor’s definition though it does not state anything as said above, but it can still be claimed to be biased by the very fact that it favours the theological aspect without really even considering the other aspects like sociological, psychological, moral concerns of religion. Any favouritism in definition will obviously result a certain bias. Because the definition is based on a single aspect of mere ‘belief” it automatically ignores the rational side of religion.

Thus it is clearly stated that how a definition, even the scrupulously worked out one can be found to be inadequate in explaining and giving an objective view of what really religion is. Scholars have acknowledged this their failure to arrive at an universal definition of religion. In order to overcome this short coming what they suggest instead is a working definition, which would serve as a guideline or a parameter of religion within which one can conveniently operate. J.L. Cox gives one such definition.
‘ Religion is a varied symbolic expression of that which people appropriately respond to as being of unrestricted value for them.’
It should be noted that this working definition is only a guideline and is not the final word on the topic.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
COX, J.L., Expressing The Sacred, University Of Zimbabwe Publications, ZIMBABWE,1992.
McBRIEN, P.R., Catholicism, Vol.1, Geoffrey Chapman, London,1980.
RAHNER, K., “Religion”, in the Encyclopedia Of Theology, Burns & Oates, LONDON,1975.
SCHMIDT, R., Exploring Religion, Wardsworth Publishing Company, USA,1988.

Major religions of the world

African Traditional Religions
Bahai Faith
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Rastafarianism
Shinto Traditions
Sikhism
Taoism
Zoroastrianism