Religions share certain elements—belief in a god or goddess, for example, or a sense of a transcendent order in the universe—but there are many differences among them. How, then, do scholars approach the study of religion? Most of the time, attempts to analyze religion take one of two forms. Some define it “monothetically” and operate with the classical notion that every instance of a concept must have exactly those defining properties that distinguish it from other phenomena, while others take a “polythetic” view and treat religion, like all concepts, as having a prototype structure.
Both approaches can be useful, and there are advantages to both: monothetic definitions are simpler and easier to work with, while polythetic definitions are more able to capture the diverse properties that make up a concept.
Some definitions of religion emphasize beliefs and experiences, while others focus on institutions or disciplinary practices. Still other definitions take a more functional approach, viewing religion as the set of ways in which an individual or group seeks to organize life on the basis of a worldview or ethos.
In any case, a broad spectrum of anthropological, historical, philosophical, theological, and sociological perspectives has been involved in an ongoing debate over how to understand this highly complex phenomenon. In recent years, this debate has gained momentum as scholars from various disciplines have begun to recognize the importance of pulling back the camera lens and examining how the categories of culture, philosophy, tradition, morality, and religion were constructed.
It is important to understand this process because it explains why it is so difficult to settle on a definitive definition of religion. It also reveals the degree to which all definitions of religion impose particular worldviews or ethos on the objects they refer to—which, in turn, affect how these objects are understood and practiced.
Ultimately, however, the purpose of most religions is to protect and transmit the means to attain the most important goals human beings can imagine. Some of these goals are proximate, involving the development of a wiser, more fruitful, more charitable, or more successful way to live in this life; while others are ultimate, and involve the fulfillment of a destiny that surpasses this and any other life, in this world or beyond it.
Many people have criticized substantive definitions of religion for being ethnocentric, in that they tend to emphasize belief, personal experience, and the dichotomy between the natural and supernatural, thereby excluding faith traditions that do not fit this mold. Likewise, some have criticized functional definitions of religion for being insufficiently psychological, in that they do not adequately address the role of mental states in the formation of religious beliefs and experiences. However, if the concept of religion is to be more than a label for an amalgam of cultural and philosophic ideas and behaviors, it will necessarily need to incorporate at least some level of psychological complexity.